Sunday, August 17, = 2008

The Other Darwin

The nineteenth-century naturalist gets emotional

by Mark Czarnecki

photograph by Sandy Nicholson

Darwin=E2=80=99s = time has come again.=20 Heralded by new biographies and editions of his works, a dual = anniversary looms:=20 2009 will mark 200 years since his birth, and 150 years since the = publication of=20 On the Origin of Species by = Means=20 of Natural Selection. Like Marx and Freud, the = other=20 towering nineteenth-century humanists whose names are dropped in the = same breath=20 as his, he embedded in our world view fundamental concepts that once = embraced=20 will not let go. But unlike the variants of Marxist and Freudian thought = that=20 have launched a thousand experiments (not all seaworthy), evolution is = accepted=20 as fact, not theory, at least as far as biology is concerned. And with = biology=20 brought to heel, evolutionists have been hard at work figuring out how = and why=20 humans behave and think the way they do, both as individuals and as = societies.=20

For more photos by Sandy Nicholson, = see our=20 online exclusive gallery =E2=80=9CSecond=20 Place Finishes=E2=80=9D.

Evolution=E2=80=99s advance upon other = disciplines would come=20 as no surprise to Darwin. The recent exhibit at the Royal Ontario = Museum, titled=20 Darwin: The Evolution Revolution, revealed him as an indefatigable = scientific=20 researcher, a loving paterfamilias, and a country gentleman with a = Renaissance=20 passion for learning. A graceful and persuasive writer, he published = more than a=20 dozen books on life forms from barnacles to orchids, in addition to the=20 classics, On the Origin of = Species,=20 and The Descent of Man, = and=20 Selection in Relation to Sex = (1871). He=20 was also a keen observer of the Industrial Revolution=E2=80=99s impact = on those less=20 privileged than himself. Driven by a strong social conscience, he hoped = that=20 ultimately evolution would not only explain but improve the human = condition.=20

Darwin=E2=80=99s concern with breaking the manacles of the = Industrial Revolution=20 was shared by many of his contemporaries, including social philosophers = such as=20 Herbert Spencer, who coined the phrase =E2=80=9Csurvival of the = fittest.=E2=80=9D But Darwin=E2=80=99s=20 true love was biology, and once Spencer and other activists took = evolution under=20 their wing he was content to support their efforts, at least in = principle. =E2=80=9CIn=20 the future,=E2=80=9D he wrote in Origin, =E2=80=9CI see open = fields for far more=20 important researches. Psychology will be securely based on the = foundation=20 already well laid by Mr. Herbert Spencer, that of the necessary = acquirement of=20 each mental power and capacity by gradation [evolution]. Much light will = be=20 thrown on the origin of man and his history.=E2=80=9D

The = classic view of=20 evolution is that random alterations in the biology of individuals make = some=20 more adaptable than others to their changing environment. These adaptive = traits=20 are =E2=80=9Cselected,=E2=80=9D and the fittest survive in succeeding = generations until,=20 eventually, a new species evolves. Evolutionary psychology takes = evolution one=20 step further: not only the body of Homo sapiens, but the = human=20 mind as well has been shaped by this process. How we think and feel has = evolved=20 over millennia, stretching back to our prehistory on the African = savannah, and=20 those ancient patterns stay with us, despite the cultural overlay of = recorded=20 history and the wide spectrum of individual difference.

Unfortunately, Spencer and the =E2=80=9Csocial = Darwinists=E2=80=9D ended up=20 hijacking evolutionary psychology and leading it down a garden path = quite=20 foreign to Darwin. In On the Origin of Species, he=E2=80=99d = shown that=20 biological evolution most often followed a long and unpredictable = trajectory,=20 but the social Darwinists believed a society could evolve in the span of = a=20 lifetime if superior individuals were allowed free rein to exercise = their=20 natural gift for survival at the expense of their inferiors. Identifying = and=20 encouraging these superior elements was the challenge of eugenics, an = offshoot=20 of social Darwinism founded by Francis Galton, Darwin=E2=80=99s cousin. = Eugenics quickly=20 acquired a racial tinge, and it needed only the revelation of = Mendel=E2=80=99s genetic=20 discoveries at the turn of the twentieth century to stray disastrously = into=20 sterilization and similar abuses. Unjustly but inevitably, eugenics = dragged the=20 infant discipline of evolutionary psychology down with it, and both = ended up=20 tarred with the crimes of the Nazis.

It is impossible to = overestimate=20 eugenics=E2=80=99 chilling effect on the application of evolutionary = ideas to human=20 psychology and society. If biology does in fact influence how we feel, = think,=20 and behave, the fear went, evil rulers could engineer, through genetic=20 manipulation, a population tailored to their unscrupulous agendas. = Therefore,=20 any hint of biological determinism was banished from psychological = research, and=20 the pendulum swung to the other extreme, cultural determinism, or social = constructivism. For decades, this dominant paradigm decreed that human = behaviour=20 was influenced mainly by socializing factors, such as the family and = prevailing=20 cultural norms, and that biology played little if any role. =

During this=20 time, evolutionists who ventured into psychology and the social sciences = were=20 outcasts. Typical of their struggle against the ruling paradigm was the=20 experience of Paul Ekman, a psychologist who set out for New Guinea in = the 1960s=20 to vindicate Darwin=E2=80=99s final major work, The Expression = of=20 the Emotions in Man and = Animals=20 (1872). All his life, Darwin had taken notes on the facial = expression of=20 emotions in both animals and humans; for cross-cultural data, he asked=20 correspondents around the world to describe indigenous people showing = happiness,=20 anger, and other basic emotions, and to ask the subjects what feeling = was being=20 expressed. From this research, he concluded that the expression of = emotions was=20 identical in primates, and must have a biological basis apart from = culture and=20 society. In The Expression of the = Emotions,=20 Darwin therefore drew the first credible analogy between the evolution = of the=20 human body and that of the human mind.

But thanks to the wide = net cast=20 by the eugenics backlash, the book remained anathema to social = constructivists=20 until Ekman began his crusade to resurrect it. The anecdotal approach = Darwin=20 took in The Expression of the = Emotions,=20 partly imposed by the ill health that confined him to England after his = famous=20 voyage on the HMS Beagle, lacked rigour by the modern = standards of=20 field anthropology. Ekman wanted to duplicate Darwin=E2=80=99s research = using=20 =E2=80=9Cquantitative methods to measure observable behaviour=E2=80=9D = =E2=80=94 to apply the scientific=20 method in a way Darwin could not.

Ekman=E2=80=99s findings in = New Guinea=20 confirmed Darwin=E2=80=99s thesis, and he added to Darwin=E2=80=99s = research the concept of=20 =E2=80=9Cdisplay rules.=E2=80=9D From his studies of how Japanese and = Americans revealed their=20 emotions differently in the presence of authority figures, he concluded = that=20 cultures differed widely as to which emotions they were permitted to = reveal to=20 others. An anthology Ekman edited and contributed to on facial = expressions and=20 the emotions was reviewed by anthropologist Margaret Mead, doyenne at = that time=20 of the reigning cultural orthodoxy, and author of such influential = classics as=20 Coming of Age in Samoa. Mead savaged = his=20 methodology, and concluded her review by suggesting that = Darwin=E2=80=99s genius lay in=20 posing questions, not delivering answers.

Ekman soldiered on, and was vindicated in turn. = In the last=20 decades of the twentieth century, constructivism became less dominant in = the=20 social sciences. Mead=E2=80=99s own work was brought into question, and = evolutionary=20 psychology gained credence, if not full acceptance, under the leadership = of=20 entomologist E. O. Wilson. In 1998, Ekman published a landmark edition = of=20 Darwin=E2=80=99s book that included Darwin=E2=80=99s original = photographs and his own, along=20 with related contemporary research.

In this decade, the = evolutionary=20 approach to psychology has almost become an orthodoxy in its own right:=20 bestsellers such as Steven Pinker=E2=80=99s The Blank = Slate:=20 The Modern Denial of Human = Nature=20 scathingly denounce social constructivism, while Marc = Hauser=E2=80=99s Moral=20 Minds: How Nature Designed Our = Universal Sense of Right and = Wrong=20 posits a =E2=80=9Cuniversal moral grammar=E2=80=9D in an attempt to = explain why humans are=20 nice to one another when from a narrowly evolutionary standpoint they = have no=20 apparent reason to be. Evolutionary ideas are also remarkably common in = a wide=20 range of popular self-help works, such as Ekman=E2=80=99s own = Emotions=20 Revealed and John Gray=E2=80=99s Men Are = from=20 Mars, Women Are from = Venus.=20

Despite these advances, resistance to evolution in academic = disciplines=20 other than the natural sciences remains solidly entrenched. In part, the = tension=20 reflects the traditional standoff between the humanities and the = sciences, a=20 divide detailed by the scientist and novelist C. P. Snow in his seminal = book=20 The Two Cultures, published in 1959. But evolution = has its=20 special antagonists, the most vociferous being the creationists; they = objected=20 to evolution at its birth and have never stopped, fuelled by rich and = powerful=20 Christian institutions.

Creationists see the mind as a = manifestation of=20 divine spirit. But this viewpoint is only the tip of an iceberg = evolutionists=20 have failed to dissolve: the belief that the mind is not material and is = not=20 governed by the laws of the physical world. This belief has a rich = tradition in=20 Western culture, but it contradicts evolution=E2=80=99s claim that mind = and=20 consciousness cannot be considered apart from the body and brain in = which they=20 reside.

Evolutionists can be their own worst enemies in = defending this=20 position, and hardliners such as Richard Dawkins, author of The = God=20 Delusion, get the most press. More moderate thinkers, for = instance=20 those who wonder if religious belief might be adaptive (i.e., that it = might=20 increase an individual=E2=80=99s chances of survival), have less = opportunity to address=20 the genuine concern in the humanities and the arts that evolution is a = reductive=20 approach to a very complicated human reality.

Into this divide steps Edward Slingerland, = co-founder of=20 the University of British Columbia=E2=80=99s new Centre for Human = Evolution, Cognition,=20 and Culture. Writers on evolution issues are usually scientists, but = Slingerland=20 is one of a newer generation =E2=80=94 following in the footsteps of = philosopher Daniel=20 Dennett =E2=80=94 whose training is in the humanities, but who have = turned to science=20 for answers no longer provided by their disciplines of origin. In = What=20 Science Offers the Humanities:=20 Integrating Body and Culture, = Slingerland=20 proffers an olive branch, arguing that each side must reach out to the = other to=20 prevent the university from succumbing to overly hostile diversity.=20

Citing the case of a student in the psychology of religion who = knew next=20 to nothing about the actual content of the world=E2=80=99s religions, = Slingerland=20 advises scientists to augment knowledge of their specialities with the = broader=20 perspectives only the humanities can provide. Scholars in the = humanities, on the=20 other hand, must forgo their disdain of the scientific method or lapse = into=20 irrelevance. Originally a scholar of classical Chinese, Slingerland = knows from=20 hard experience that humanists who cross into the world of science and = return=20 with the new gospel are not greeted with open arms. =E2=80=9CWhen I = mention the term=20 =E2=80=98behavioral neuroscience=E2=80=99 among a group of religious = studies scholars or=20 sinologists,=E2=80=9D he writes, =E2=80=9Cmost smile politely and begin = slowly backing away,=20 casting about for a safe exit route.=E2=80=9D Not surprisingly, he = blames humanists more=20 than scientists for perpetuating misunderstanding between the two = cultures.=20

Like many evolutionists, Slingerland believes the humanities are = at a=20 dead end, and he typically places most of the responsibility for the = debacle on=20 postmodernism. What irks evolutionists most about postmodernism is that = by=20 denying a consistent objective reality, it tends to hold all narratives = to be=20 inherently subjective and equally valid: scientific explanations rooted = in the=20 physical world have no privileged status. To an evolutionist, this = displacement=20 of the scientific method is an open invitation to intellectual tyranny.=20

To remedy the situation, evolutionists have researched and = written=20 extensively on religious and philosophical issues. But the arts present = the=20 greatest challenge, if only because they appear, by definition in the = physical=20 scheme of things, to be unnecessary for survival. Tentative forays into=20 aesthetics in such books as Biopoetics: Evolutionary=20 Explorations in the Arts have so far not = generated much momentum. More promising is literature and narrative in = general,=20 topics especially dear to =E2=80=9Cliterary Darwinists,=E2=80=9D who = want to reclaim territory=20 from postmodern French philosophers such as Roland Barthes and Jacques = Derrida.=20

Reflecting the uncertainty of their nascent discipline, the = anthology=20 The Literary Animal: Evolution and = the Nature of Narrative, jointly edited = by=20 English scholar Jonathan Gottschall and David Wilson, a biologist and=20 anthropologist, takes a shotgun approach to evolution and literature. To = set=20 some ground rules, Brian Boyd, in his essay =E2=80=9CEvolutionary = Theories of Art,=E2=80=9D=20 outlines four possible explanations for why humans make art. Two of = these see=20 art as adaptive, either by encouraging social cohesion or by developing = the=20 useful survival strategy of imagining =E2=80=9Cwhat if?=E2=80=9D Another = explanation views art=20 as a human version of the male peacock=E2=80=99s tail, an instrument of = sexual selection=20 that makes its owner or producer more attractive to mates. = Boyd=E2=80=99s final=20 possibility is that art has no intrinsic survival or selective value at = all, but=20 is only a by-product of other evolved functions of the brain. =

Despite=20 these diverse and suggestive approaches, the essays in the collection = tend to=20 focus on the content of literature rather than its creation. Typical is=20 =E2=80=9CLiterature, Science, and Human Nature,=E2=80=9D by novelist Ian = McEwan, the only=20 professional writer among the contributors. Several characters in his = novels=20 expound knowledgeably on evolution, most notably Joe Rose in Enduring = Love, who ironically attracts a male stalker whose desire = fits no=20 evolutionary category at all. McEwan ascribes the ability of readers, = regardless=20 of culture, to appreciate the emotions and motivations of characters in = literary=20 works from entirely different cultures to the universal emotions we have = acquired through evolution. =E2=80=9CLiterature must be our = anthropology,=E2=80=9D he proclaims,=20 noting that anthropologists no longer have the opportunity for first = contact=20 that allowed Ekman to revalidate The Expression of = the=20 Emotions.

McEwan=E2=80=99s approach makes literature = a handmaiden to=20 science. More scientific than McEwan=E2=80=99s essay, in method at = least, is=20 Gottschall=E2=80=99s investigation of world folklore, in which he = addresses the feminist=20 critique that European fairy tales are sexist and not suitable for = children.=20 Using computers to crunch volumes of data, he concludes that all fairy = tales,=20 not just European ones, are sexist =E2=80=94 not a problem for = evolutionists, since what=20 feminists term sexist they term natural. In this essay, the literature = is not=20 evaluated as literature, but serves as data for a more comprehensive = analysis of=20 social attitudes.

Implicit in Gottschall=E2=80=99s argument is = the idea that=20 statements about literature that cannot be scientifically verified are=20 inherently inferior. In another investigation, he recognized a testable=20 hypothesis in Barthes=E2=80=99s well-worn notion that there are no = authors, only readers=20 who =E2=80=9Cwrite=E2=80=9D a different book each time they read. = Working with Joseph Carroll, a=20 leading literary Darwinist, Gottschall set up a huge survey to catalogue = individual responses to a wide range of Victorian novels. The = consistency of=20 readers=E2=80=99 emotional reactions was statistically significant, = demonstrating to=20 Gottschall that the extreme subjectivism so dear to postmodernism is = groundless.=20

Extensive surveys like = Gottschall=E2=80=99s, along=20 with cross-cultural studies and brain scans to monitor areas that = respond to=20 different stimuli, are the stock-in-trade of psychological and = neurological=20 investigation. On the face of it, there is no reason why the humanities = should=20 not employ these powerful tools to generate different perspectives on = literature=20 or other humanist disciplines =E2=80=94 without necessarily assuming = that these=20 scientific results represent the final word on the subject at hand. = Common sense=20 says that the sciences and the humanities need both extreme objectivity = and=20 extreme subjectivity, and everything in between.

Computer = analyses and=20 brain scans are light years away from Darwin=E2=80=99s anecdotal = approach in The=20 Expression of the Emotions, or even from = Ekman=E2=80=99s=20 more scientific confirmation of Darwin=E2=80=99s findings in the 1960s. = But hightech=20 methods sometimes pale beside homespun ingenuity in the formulation of = an=20 experiment. Takahiko Masuda, a psychologist at the University of = Alberta, has=20 conducted extensive cross-cultural studies comparing North American and = Japanese=20 responses to various stimuli. Curious about the finding that facial = expressions=20 of emotion are universal, and noting that both Darwin and Ekman showed = their=20 subjects isolated faces without context or background, Masuda and his = team=20 compared the responses of the two cultural groups when presented with a=20 Photoshop- generated happy face against a background of faces expressing = various=20 intensities of happiness, sadness, and anger.

When presented = with a=20 smiling face against a background of contrary expressions, the Japanese, = unlike=20 the North Americans, had significant doubts about whether the face truly = represented =E2=80=9Chappiness.=E2=80=9D Much more than the North = Americans, the Japanese took=20 context into account and concluded that, despite the smiley face, an = individual=20 surrounded by unhappy people might not feel all that happy. Like the = display=20 rules Ekman had formulated from his own analysis of American and = Japanese=20 cultures, Masuda=E2=80=99s work points to what might be termed = =E2=80=9Ccontext rules=E2=80=9D that=20 affect the actual experiencing of emotion.

Masuda and his co-workers concluded that cultural = variants=20 explain the difference in the responses. Indeed, without data from = prehistory=20 there is no way to validate any other interpretation. Presumably, at = some point=20 in the past the ancestors of the two responding groups diverged in their = sensitivity to foregrounding and context. But which diverged from which? = Is the=20 North American response the later one =E2=80=94 meaning that the older, = =E2=80=9Cuniversal=E2=80=9D=20 response would be the Japanese one =E2=80=94 or vice versa? =

Masuda=E2=80=99s findings=20 suggest that a one-to-one correspondence between internal emotion and = external=20 expression may not be as direct and universal as Darwin and Ekman = assumed. While=20 not undermining their work, the research demonstrates how scientific = truths,=20 even those as established as evolution, continue to evolve as the human = mind=20 finds new ways to reconstruct old paradigms. And Darwin himself, a = bearded=20 patriarch strolling down his =E2=80=9Cthinking path=E2=80=9D on the = grounds of his estate in=20 Kent, would have been the first to consider these questions worth = investigating.=20

- Published September 2008

=C2=A9 2008 The Walrus=20 Magazine