Reason Magazine - Darwin and Dickens

Flip to pages 160 and 161 of the recent book with the tongue-tying,=20 brain-busting title Mimesis and the Human Animal: On the Biogenetic=20 Foundations of Literary Representation, and you will find something = unprecedented in the annals of literary criticism: scientific line = drawings of=20 the "relaxed open-mouth display of [the] crab-eating monkey" and a = diagram=20 tracing the "phylogenetic development of laughter and smiling" in = primitive=20 mammals, chimpanzees, and human beings. Mimesis and the Human = Animal,=20 written by Temple University English professor Robert Storey, is not, = mind you,=20 an explication of Pierre Boulle's 1963 novel Planet of the = Apes; nor is=20 it an au courant cultural studies analysis of the Curious = George=20 children's series. Rather, Storey's book seeks to answer no less = traditional a=20 question than, "What does it mean to say that art imitates life?"

The casual reader--or even the seasoned literary scholar --can be = excused for=20 being disoriented by the monkey pictures: Just what on earth could a = crab-eating=20 monkey (or even one that preferred lobster) possibly have to do with = Shakespeare=20 and The Scarlet Letter? What could "relaxed open-mouth = displays"=20 possibly have to do with Milton and Moby-Dick?

Plenty, it turns out. Or at least that's the case spelled out in = Mimesis=20 and the Human Animal's densely argued and heavily footnoted 274 = pages.=20 Storey contends that literary critics need to "take seriously the = implications=20 of human evolution" for their field. Human society, he argues, = "exfoliates from=20 human biology," and his book attempts to parse the "biogrammar," or = underlying=20 range and rules, of a culture underwritten by evolutionary "strategies = of=20 survival." Forget about William Carlos Williams's famous modernist red=20 wheelbarrow, goes this line of thinking. So much more depends = on the=20 relaxed open-mouth display of that crab-eating monkey.

Storey is one of a growing number of scholars linking literary = studies with=20 recent and ongoing developments in evolutionary theory. (In the interest = of full=20 disclosure, I should note that I am a former graduate student of = Storey's and am=20 mentioned in the acknowledgments of his book.) Over the past decade or = so, such=20 efforts have become numerous and widespread enough to suggest, in his = tentative=20 phrase, "something very like a `movement.'" Though such scholars take = various=20 approaches and have important differences with one another, all agree, = as Storey=20 parsimoniously puts it, that "biology counts."

In Evolution and Literary Theory (1995), Joseph Carroll, an = English=20 professor at the University of Missouri at Kansas City, argues that = "knowledge=20 is a biological phenomenon, that literature is a form of knowledge, and = that=20 literature is thus itself a biological phenomenon." In Reading = Minds: The=20 Study of English in an Age of Cognitive Science (1991), University = of=20 Maryland English professor Mark Turner analyzes "acts of language, = including=20 literature, as acts of a human brain in a human environment which that = brain=20 must make intelligible if it is to survive."

In Natural Classicism (originally published in 1985 and = reissued in=20 1992), REASON contributing editor and University of Texas at Dallas = English=20 professor Frederick Turner (no relation to Mark Turner) links recurrent, = cross-cultural rhyme and meter patterns to specific structures in the = human=20 brain; more recently, in The Culture of Hope (1995), he writes = of a=20 "camp" of artists and critics inspired by the recognition "that = evolution--a=20 concept now extended by scientists to cover not just biology but the = whole of=20 the physical universe--is productive of novel forms of order." In A = Blessed=20 Rage for Order: Deconstruction, Evolution, and Chaos (1991) = Turner's=20 U.T.-Dallas colleague Alexander J. Argyros synthesizes aspects of E.O. = Wilson's=20 foundational text Sociobiology with the "emerging science of = chaos" to=20 lay out a "new understanding of art." Anthropologist Ellen Dissanayake = has=20 authored two wider-ranging forays into general artistic activity, = What Is=20 Art For? (1988) and Homo Aestheticus: Where Art Comes From and = Why=20 (1992). Further attempts to create an evolutionary-based or influenced = criticism=20 have been outlined by another half-dozen or so people.

The burgeoning interest in evolution's intersection with culture has=20 implications far beyond the somewhat cramped confines accorded = literature within=20 the ivory tower. This sort of criticism represents the most = thoroughgoing=20 assault on the powerful intellectual orthodoxy that University of = California at=20 Berkeley English professor Frederick Crews has dubbed "the = Poststructuralist=20 Vanguard"--those "cutting edge" schools of thought in the humanities and = social=20 sciences that emphasize the "social construction" of reality.

Such ideas--along with the poststructuralist penchant for using = "moral=20 intimidation" to cow dissenters--have proven intellectually corrosive, = says=20 Crews. Though simpatico with poststructuralists' politics, he is = disturbed by=20 the substitution of utopian fantasies for a "willingness to face up to = the best=20 available knowledge of our world." "Real harm is being done," he writes, = "to the=20 cause of empirical rationality, which has been tacitly devalued by many=20 poststructuralists and explicitly condemned as oppressive by some = others."

In the longstanding nature-nurture debate, poststructuralists stake = out a=20 position that's basically off the scale: Not only is all human behavior = an=20 artifact of environment, "nature" itself is a wholly ideological = construct, a=20 mystifying abstraction invoked to justify the status quo or some = inevitably=20 retrograde social arrangement. By championing the scientific method, = rational=20 analysis, and the idea that there is something approaching an objective, = knowable reality--concepts derided by poststructuralists as tools of = repression=20 and self-deluding bourgeois ideology--the evolutionary critics may well = help=20 replace a generally unexamined belief in the supremacy of environmental=20 conditioning with a more nuanced appreciation for how genetic and = environmental=20 factors affect human activity, including the art we produce and consume.

Evolutionary Readings

On the face of it, the pairing of evolution and literature seems = likely to=20 produce some sort of Frankenstein monster: freakish at best (The = Naked=20 Ape meets The Hairy Ape) and disturbing at worst (The = Bell=20 Curve meets The Bell Jar). Yet much of the work produced = so far is=20 interesting and engaging, offering alternative readings of established = literary=20 works and pointing to new areas worth investigating.

The core concept of Darwinian evolution is that life--plant and = animal,=20 insect and human--struggles to adapt to its environment. Life forms that = adapt=20 successfully flourish; those that don't perish. Over millions of years, = this=20 process of reward and punishment has led to tremendous variation both = within=20 species (certain beaks work better for certain birds in certain = environments)=20 and among species (it doesn't pay for us all to be birds). Where early=20 evolutionary theorists often posited human beings as the "highest" = achievement=20 of evolution, contemporary theorists stress instead the proliferation of = adaptive strategies and life forms. Evolution is recognized as a process = with no=20 particular end point; indeed, it's conceived as something like a = relentless=20 diversity machine (albeit one with dire results for most new = variations).

According to evolutionary theory, there are all sorts of "proximate," = or=20 immediate, causes of behavior, but the ultimate cause of activity is an = attempt=20 to maximize reproductive success, to keep on keeping on, either at the = level of=20 individual organisms or at the level of genes themselves. Millennia of = such=20 attempts have left their marks on all life forms, including humans: We = have=20 inherited all sorts of physical and mental structures (color vision, = distinct=20 genitalia for men and women, emotions, etc.) and predispositions to = certain=20 types of behaviors (forming groups, caring for infants, creating = rituals, etc.)=20 that somehow paid off in the past. Far from being a tabula rasa that can = be=20 wiped clean and rewritten time and again, humans are born with certain=20 constraints, tendencies, and proclivities that, in combination with=20 environmental factors, determine behavior.

In Taking Darwin Seriously (1986), the philosopher of = science=20 Michael Ruse writes, "Two tigers were seen going into [a] cave. Only one = came=20 out. Is the cave now safe? Again: you have to travel across a plain to = get to=20 your hunting grounds. You can only walk a limited distance in this heat. = Should=20 you set off now? Should you wait until tomorrow? Should you plan to camp = out for=20 the night?...The proto-human who had...[a] disposition to take seriously = the law=20 of the excluded middle, and who avoided contradictions, survived and = reproduced=20 better than he/she who did not." For better or worse, argue the = evolutionary=20 critics, we are descendants of that savvy proto-human. And like all = heirs, we=20 have inherited traits--good, bad, and indifferent--from long-dead = ancestors.

Joseph Carroll provides perhaps the most clear-cut example of how = such=20 insights can be used in literary criticism. Noting that evolution does = not mean=20 that "all organisms, and especially not all human organisms, are = directly=20 seeking to maximize their reproductive success," it "does imply that all = innate=20 human psychological structures have...evolved under the regulative power = of=20 reproductive success and that these innate structures remain fully = active at the=20 present time." For Carroll, the "single most important corollary of this = principle, for the purposes of literary analysis, is that reproductive = success,=20 in its twin aspects of sexual union and the production of successful = offspring,=20 is central to human concerns and thus to literary works." The hunt is = on, in=20 other words, to see how "strategies" of "reproductive success" play out = in=20 literary texts--or to tally the costs of repressing the same.

Carroll's reading of Emily Bront=C3=AB's Wuthering Heights = proceeds from=20 such assumptions: He notes that the story of the tempestuous = relationship=20 between the foundling Heathcliff and Catherine Linton (n=C3=A9e = Earnshaw), who are=20 raised as brother and sister, is usually discussed as a "conflict = between=20 unregulated, demonic sexual passion and tamely civilized behavior." = Critics=20 typically explicate Wuthering Heights in terms of Heathcliff = and=20 Catherine's struggle with their quasi-incestuous desires. Such a = Freudian focus,=20 argues Carroll, "erroneously" imports incest into a text where it is not = a=20 central issue (he cites Hamlet as a similar instance of = critical=20 malfeasance). Instead, Carroll argues that something else is at work.

Drawing on current ethological research, Carroll documents that boys = and=20 girls who are raised as siblings, even if they are not related, are = "genetically=20 programmed" to find sexual relations distasteful. Given that, he writes, = "we can=20 conjecture that Heathcliff and Catherine...raised as brother and sister, = are not=20 engaged in a primarily sexual liaison as adults, that the relationship = is=20 essentially regressive, motivated by an appeal to childhood....The = violent and=20 histrionic displays in which both Heathcliff and Cathy engage would be = seen not=20 as Byronic sexual displays but rather as infantile tantrums = pathologically (and=20 lethally) affiliated with adult power." Drawing on biographical detail, = Carroll=20 concludes that Wuthering Heights is a "projective = representation of=20 Emily Bront=C3=AB's overly enmeshed (but not incestuous) relationship = with her=20 alcoholic brother Branwell."

Carroll's approach is basically traditionalist in terms of subject = matter (a=20 classic novel) and method (a thematic reading, authorial biography). = That=20 approach hardly exhausts the possibilities of evolutionary criticism, = either in=20 topic or temperament. In Mimesis and the Human Animal, for = instance,=20 Storey draws on all manner of literary texts --old and new, high and = low,=20 lasting and ephemeral. He discusses the characters Volpone, Sgt. Bilko, = and Lex=20 Luthor in a single sentence; references to the Spanish Golden Age drama=20 Celestina rub up against mentions of the sitcom = Cheers. While=20 Carroll's introduction to Evolutionary and Literary Theory is a = decorous (though full-scale) assault on poststructural thought, Storey = comes out=20 swinging in a "Pugnacious Preface" that features the Brechtian epigraph, = "Why=20 should we still want to be so clever when at long last we have a chance = of being=20 a little less stupid?"

Where Does Comedy Come From?

Storey explicates the biological underpinnings of the tragic and = comic=20 genres. Discussing the latter, Storey "approach[es] laughter and=20 smiling--universal reactions of human beings to specifiable classes of=20 stimuli--as evolved responses of an apparently adaptive kind." = This is=20 where the crab-eating monkey and relaxed open-mouth displays come into = play:=20 Laughter and smiling and their flip sides, anger and crying, turn out to = have=20 common roots in the mammalian fight-or-flight response to ambiguous=20 circumstances. Any sudden, startling, or incongruous situation, Storey = explains,=20 may lead to laughter and smiling, or if it's deemed dangerous, to = avoidance,=20 anger, and tears.

What's common to "laugh-inducing situations" across cultures, he = writes, is=20 the presence of a "masterable discrepancy." If you can resolve a = difficult or=20 foreboding situation, you're likely to laugh, smile, or feel relief. = Such is the=20 evolutionary basis, argues Storey, for the comic genre. Make the = situation=20 unmasterable, and one moves into the realm of tragedy, with all = its=20 fear, trembling, and pathos. He further notes that the common biological = basis=20 for both genres helps explain why it is often difficult to draw a bright = line=20 between the two.

Where Carroll and Storey spend much of their time explicating = specific works=20 of literature, Alexander Argyros suggests a third way of doing = evolutionary=20 criticism. His A Blessed Rage for Order scarcely mentions = literary=20 works per se, save for the title's allusion to a Wallace Stevens poem. = Instead,=20 Argyros is more interested in the sort of theoretical and philosophical=20 expositions about writing that characterize much poststructuralist = criticism and=20 contemporary literary "theory." While all the evolutionary critics = engage=20 poststructuralism at length, Argyros seems more sympathetic to it than = most; he=20 spends the first third of the book in an affectionate, if relentless, = critique=20 of the thought of Jacques Derrida, the Big Kahuna of deconstruction.

Argyros also moves beyond biological evolution to discuss = wider-ranging and=20 far more speculative matters: "Recent developments in a congeries of = different=20 disciplines, ranging from high-energy physics to biogenetic = anthropology,=20 suggest the contours of a stunningly beautiful model of cosmic = evolution," he=20 writes, drawing heavily on chaos theory. "Rather than a flat web of = traces, the=20 universe appears to be a marvelously complex, and frequently tangled, = dynamical=20 hierarchical system." The interest in different forms of evolution leads = him=20 ultimately to suggest that art is "simply the result of [an] incongruity = between=20 a rapidly evolving cultural world and our evolutionary heritage."

From such a point, Argyros develops a theory about the function of=20 storytelling, its larger social purpose, and its apparent universal = appeal. The=20 creation and interpretation of literature, he argues, participate in = creating a=20 "gene-culture coevolution, a positive feedback system" in which genes = generate=20 basic rules for culture and "cultural practice creates selective = pressure for=20 the survival of certain genes." Since "literature is a model through = which=20 factual and counterfactual possibilities may be staged," he says, it = gives=20 "human societies...the capacity to identify and rank possibilities." The = imagined worlds created through all forms of storytelling, then, are = means=20 through which individuals and societies envision and move toward their = futures.

From Science to Subversion

To appreciate fully how different evolutionary approaches to = literatures are,=20 one needs to understand a few things about contemporary literary = studies,=20 particularly poststructuralist assumptions about science. As Frederick = Crews has=20 accurately put it, poststructuralism, a set of related ideas associated = with=20 figures such as Jacques Derrida, Michel Foucault, and Roland Barthes, = "has been=20 all but officially recognized as the new academic establishment." Its=20 assumptions writes Crews, are often "treated as self-evidently valid." = If=20 poststructuralism does not quite constitute an express "flight from = science and=20 reason" (as the title of a recent anti-poststructuralist collection = would have=20 it), it certainly travels in that general direction.

As its name suggests, poststructuralism was born out of = "structuralism," a=20 school of thought identified with French anthropologist Claude = L=C3=A9vi-Strauss that=20 achieved prominence in the humanities and social sciences in the 1950s = and '60s.=20 Structuralism was based on the search for deep, underlying similarities = in=20 cultural phenomena, including myth, art, and literature. After = identifying=20 analogous "structural" relationships (or "isomorphisms"), the = structuralist=20 could then compare apparently different objects of study and tease out = larger,=20 deeper meanings.=20

L=C3=A9vi-Strauss used such a method to read different versions of = the Oedipus=20 myth (including Freud's) and Zuni Indian creation myths, concluding that = they=20 all dealt with a culture's inability to move from a primitive conception = of=20 human beings as "of the earth" to "the knowledge that [they] are = actually born=20 of man and woman." In keeping with his comparative approach, = L=C3=A9vi-Strauss=20 stressed cognitive and cultural relativism. He dismissed "prevalent = attempts to=20 explain alleged differences between the so-called primitive mind and = scientific=20 thought," arguing instead "that the kind of logic in mythical thought is = as=20 rigorous as that of modern science."

Structuralism aspired to the status of a "science" --indeed, its = proponents=20 considered it the ultimate "science of man." Poststructuralism = effectively=20 turned structuralism against itself by insisting that structuralist = readings=20 only make sense within constantly changing and ultimately subjective = contexts:=20 What L=C3=A9vi-Strauss's readings really exposed was the structure of = his=20 thought; other readers would have other responses. As the French critic = (and=20 onetime champion of structuralism) Roland Barthes put it, "Everything = signifies=20 ceaselessly and several times, but without being delegated to a great = final=20 ensemble, to an ultimate structure." There is, in the end, no final, = ultimate=20 meaning--only ongoing interpretation.

The turn to poststructural literary analysis in the early 1970s, = write Nancy=20 Easterlin and Barbara Riebling in After Poststructuralism = (1993),=20 "initially generated excitement because it seemed to tear the field of = literary=20 studies wide open, subjecting texts to radically subversive = readings....Through=20 an endless play of signifiers, the tyrannical world of finite textual = meaning=20 was replaced by a free realm of infinite ambiguity....Liberated from = fixed=20 systems of meaning, [the critic] ruled a vast empire of play and = pleasure."

The poststructuralist position on science essentially boils down to a = variation on Freud's famous rhetorical question, "Does not every science = come in=20 the end to a kind of mythology?" That is, science and the rational = analysis it=20 attempts are not qualitatively different from other sources of = knowledge.=20 Indeed, contrary to its grand claims to "universal" truth, science is = merely one=20 subjective form among others. What's more, like any other system, it = only makes=20 sense within its own set of self-confirming rules.

For poststructuralists, scientific inquiry cannot lead to anything=20 approaching "objective" reality, either because no such thing exists or = because,=20 if it does, it is ultimately unknowable since the language we use to = discuss it=20 is inherently distorting and inadequate. In Derrida's famous phrase, = "There is=20 nothing outside the text"; that is, there is no way to get beyond = language, to=20 reach a vantage point from which we can verify or refute our basic = systems of=20 knowledge. "There is no meta-language," proclaimed Jacques Lacan, = another major=20 poststructuralist thinker, "for it is necessary that all so-called=20 meta-language be presented to you with language."

What About Antibiotics?

When coupled with the work of the hugely influential French thinker = Michel=20 Foucault, such insights lead to an extreme conceptual relativ-ism. Since = no=20 theory is objectively "truer" than another, the dominance of one theory = over=20 another is seen as less a function of that theory's explanatory power = and more=20 an artifact of intimidation and social control.

In an ambivalent homage to Francis Bacon (usually vilified as the = apotheosis=20 of the desire to understand something only to control it), = poststructuralists=20 equate claims to "knowledge" with the exercise of power; indeed, = Foucault took=20 to writing about "power-knowledge." In such an analysis, Enlightenment = "science"=20 and "rationality," far from liberating society from superstition and = stultifying=20 tradition, are simply new ways of gaining social or political control. = In works=20 such as The Birth of The Clinic (1963) and Discipline and=20 Punish (1975), Foucault argued that the rise of modern medicine and = progressive penal reform hardly represented the systematic, humane = improvements=20 their defenders claimed. Instead, they represented little more than new, = increasingly efficient and insidious strategies of domination and = repression.=20 Indeed, in Discipline and Punish, Foucault suggests that the = Catholic=20 Inquisition--usually cited as a model of anti-Enlightenment = inquiry--actually=20 provided modern science with "its operating model." Both, he wrote, = essentially=20 express "an authoritarian search for a truth."

The upshot of such thinking is a skepticism toward all systems of = knowledge,=20 especially those, such as science, that make claims to objectivity. As = Duke=20 University's Stanley Fish has written, "The givens of any field of=20 activity--including the facts it commands, the procedures it trusts in, = and the=20 values it expresses and extends--are socially and politically = constructed, are=20 fashioned by man rather than delivered by God or Nature." Hence,=20 poststructuralism's emphasis on the "social construction of reality" and = its=20 attempts to "denaturalize" linguistic, social, and political = practices--to show=20 that any given system's foundations are ultimately built on sand.

Such moves often have considerable rhetorical and explanatory power. = For=20 instance, in Madness and Civilization (1961) Foucault's = discussion of=20 the rise of mental institutions in modern Europe, while historically = suspect in=20 many regards, nonetheless draws attention to how definitions of = "insanity" and=20 "mental illness" can function as ways of stigmatizing and controlling = political=20 dissent or other forms of unpopular behavior (an argument with = significant=20 parallels to Thomas Szasz's The Myth of Mental Illness, also = published=20 in 1961). Similarly, poststructuralists are undeniably right that = mistaken and=20 mendacious appeals to "God or nature"--and science itself--have often=20 underwritten all sorts of repressive policies, ranging from slavery to = denying=20 women the right to vote to imprisoning homosexuals.

At the same time, poststructuralists pay a high price for maintaining = what=20 detractors refer to as "dogmatic skepticism" and what proponents = celebrate as=20 "radical subversion." "It is now the received wisdom that Western = science and=20 technology are merely hegemonic cultural constructions," writes Joseph = Carroll.=20 But "if those who propound these views were to take their propositions = seriously=20 enough to live by them, and not merely write books propounding them, the = propositions themselves would soon disappear along with the = observers....People=20 who make such airy claims about science...still have their children=20 vaccinated...use antibiotics, visit the dentist regularly, and willingly = undergo=20 surgical procedures designed to save their lives." The viability of such = methods, Carroll underscores, does not depend on the beneficiary's = belief in or=20 understanding of the medical model.

In a poststructuralist context, then, the evolutionary critics--what = with=20 their references to "biological modes of thought," "primate evidence," = and=20 "scientific rationality"--are not simply slightly out of step: They are = beyond=20 the pale, beholden as they are to spuriously "objective" facts, = "transparent"=20 truths, and "transcendent" positions.

Critical Upstarts

Interestingly, the evolutionary critics (and the science they rely = on) are=20 quick to underscore the provisional nature of knowledge and recognize = the ways=20 in which social and cultural factors can muddy analysis. Modern science, = while=20 pursuing an ideal of complete understanding, acknowledges only partial = success=20 as inevitable. A similar sense of what might be called epistemological = humility=20 pervades the work of the evolutionary critics.

In a discussion of the scientific method, Carroll draws a sharp = distinction=20 between the turn-of-the-century views of Leslie Stephen and later work = by Karl=20 Popper. Where Stephen believed in "accepted and ultimate truths," writes = Carroll, Popper held that "all ideas are necessarily provisional = conjectures and=20 that none of them attains the status of absolute and final = truth....Popper=20 rightly rejects the naive positivist belief that there can be ideas that = have no=20 `hypothetical element,' that consist wholly of `fact,' and that are thus = `ultimate truths' that need never be modified." In a similar manner, = Storey=20 writes, "The `truth of things' in all of its wholeness and baldness must = forever=20 elude the human mind."

In their emphatic rejection of traditional, dualist conceptions such = as=20 "nature vs. nurture" and "genetic vs. environmental determinism," the=20 evolutionary critics display something like the poststructuralist = penchant for=20 showing how apparent oppositions collapse under close scrutiny. = Certainly, they=20 have little use for the exclusive categories of "nature" and "nurture." = As=20 Storey writes, "There is no separating the `innate' and the `learned.'=20 Learning...can be carried out only by an organism biologically = prepared=20 to learn, and the `innate' can manifest itself only if environmental = conditions=20 allow. ...Culture is both an expression and a critique of what the = species...is=20 biologically disposed to do." And as the evolutionary critics are quick = to point=20 out, "the natural"--an empirical category--bears no necessary connection = to "the=20 good"--a moral one.

None of this diminishes the evolutionary critics' vast differences = with=20 poststructuralism, chief among them the idea that science differs from = other=20 forms of discourse (especially in the requirement that it create = falsifiable=20 hypotheses) and the ability of human beings to gain knowledge of a world = that=20 exists beyond linguistic or cultural conventions. Such notions run = completely=20 counter to the philosophical anti-realism of poststructural thought and = its=20 unwillingness to acknowledge a world in which human beings have been = marked by=20 evolutionary processes.

The "Constructivists" Self-Destruct

So what's next in literary studies? In virtually any discussion = related to=20 evolution, the question of what the future holds is always lurking = around the=20 edges--even as one recognizes that evolution is much better at = explaining the=20 past than predicting any particular future. There seems to be a growing = sense=20 that poststructuralism and its various "constructivist" cognates may be = headed,=20 if not for extinction, then to a serious decline in population. This may = ultimately have less to do with poststructuralism's validity and more to = do with=20 scholarly appetites for innovation and novelty. The plain truth is that = every=20 critical school becomes unfashionable over time. Having enjoyed a = dominant=20 position for about 25 years, poststructuralism is simply approaching = that limit.

To be sure, poststructuralism's imminent death has been reported with = great=20 regularity. For over a decade, reports have been trickling in that = Derrida is no=20 longer in fashion in Paris, implying that, as with the lag between haute = couture=20 appearing on the runways in the City of Light and its ready-to-wear = counterpart=20 showing up at the Mall of America, his days--and those of his = poststructuralist=20 fr=C3=A8res--are numbered.

Why might it actually be true this time? Partly due to = poststructuralist=20 "discoursing" on science, of all things. Consider the most public--and=20 embarrassing--example of this: In 1996, Alan Sokal, a physics professor = at New=20 York University, published an article called "Transgressing the = Boundaries:=20 Toward a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity" in the = Spring/Summer=20 edition of Social Text, a highly influential poststructuralist = academic=20 journal. In barely readable prose, Sokal purported to unmask the = politically and=20 philosophically reactionary Enlightenment "dogma" that "there exists an = external=20 world, whose properties are independent of any individual human being = and indeed=20 of humanity as a whole; that these properties are encoded in `eternal' = physical=20 laws; and that human beings can obtain reliable, albeit imperfect and = tentative,=20 knowledge of these laws by hewing to the `objective' procedures and=20 epistemological strictures prescribed by the (so-called) scientific = method." He=20 further argued that "recent developments in quantum gravity... the = emerging=20 branch of physics in which Heisenberg's quantum mechanics and Einstein's = general=20 relativity are at once synthesized and superseded," were consistent with = various=20 progressive political ideas. In other words, he wrote a quintessentially = poststructuralist critique of science.

At the moment the issue came out, however, Sokal announced in the = pages of=20 another publication, Lingua Franca, that his Social = Text piece=20 was a fake, a mixture of "solecisms...citations of authority, plays on = words,=20 strained analogies, and bald assertions." Sokal explained that he = perpetrated=20 the hoax because he was troubled by what he saw as a decline in academic = rigor=20 in "certain precincts" of the humanities. "Would a leading North = American=20 journal of cultural studies ...publish an article liberally salted with = nonsense=20 if (a) it sounded good and (b) it flattered the = editors'=20 ideological preconceptions? The answer, unfortunately, is yes," wrote = Sokal. "I=20 intentionally wrote the article so that any competent physicist or = mathematician=20 (or undergraduate physics or math major) would realize it is a spoof. = Evidently,=20 the editors of Social Text felt comfortable publishing an = article on=20 quantum physics without bothering to consult anyone knowledgeable in the = subject." That Sokal shares Social Text's hard-left political=20 leanings--indeed, he claims he was angered by the "progressive" left's = turn=20 toward "epistemic relativism" --only made the joke that much crueler.

Being had in such a forum is both humiliating and dispiriting, to say = the=20 least. In a response printed in Lingua Franca, the co-editors = of=20 Social Text passive-aggressively admitted that they = "obviously...regret=20 having published Sokal's article," let on that they considered Sokal's = original=20 manuscript "a little hokey," but said that they were willing to let = "readers=20 judge for themselves whether [they] were right or wrong" to publish the = article.=20 They also chided Sokal for fomenting left-wing infighting: "There is = nothing we=20 regret more than watching the Left eat the Left."

More interestingly, though, they attacked him for perpetuating the=20 "caricature" of poststructuralists as "otherwordly fanatics who deny the = existence of facts, objective realities, and gravitational forces. We = are sure=20 Sokal knows that no such persons exist." Stanley Fish, the executive = editor at=20 Duke University Press, which publishes Social Text, made a = similar=20 point in a New York Times op-ed piece on the matter.

Which means that poststructural thought, in the words of some of its=20 better-known practitioners and in full public view, has been stripped of = its=20 very claim to difference. If it is merely suggesting that we should = remain=20 attentive to the limits of human knowledge and especially how they = affect=20 science, then poststructuralism is doing the same thing as its most = insistent=20 critics, but in a manifestly less informed way. Few critical movements = can long=20 survive such moments.

Evolving Future

This is not to suggest that poststructuralism or its assumptions will = vanish=20 overnight. Just as some Neanderthals walked among Cro-Magnon man, so too = do=20 dying schools of literary criticism long overlap with ascendant ones. = Indeed,=20 contrary to poststructuralist notions of swift and complete "paradigm = shifts,"=20 changes in literary criticism happen in a jerk-and-stutter fashion. The=20 assumptions and methods of older schools are typically incorporated, in = part or=20 whole, consciously or not, into what comes next. Variations on the "New=20 Critics"--who employed a critical method stressing close reading and = formal=20 elements of texts and who ruled the literary roost for much of the = postwar=20 period--still walk the halls of English departments.

While poststructuralism's fortunes may be on the wane, evolutionary=20 criticism's appear on the rise. The study of literature has always been = an=20 interdisciplinary activity, drawing on anthropology, history, philology, = psychology, and sociology. The evolutionary critics' ability to = synthesize new=20 and ongoing research and to adapt it to their own field provides a model = of how=20 such interdisciplinary study can work. Evolutionary criticism is also = likely to=20 benefit from a broader intellectual interest in, as the title of Steven = Pinker's=20 recent book puts it, How the Mind Works. The profusion of books = dealing=20 with that and related topics--The Symbolic Species, by Terrence = Deacon;=20 The Mind's Past, by Michael Gazzaniga; Language and Human=20 Behavior, by Derek Bickerton; The Origin and Evolution of=20 Intelligence, edited by Arnold Scheibel and J.W. Schopf; and = Making=20 Sense of Sex: How Genes and Gender Influence Our Relationships, by = David=20 Barash and Judith Lipton, to name but a few--suggests that criticism = informed by=20 research that transcends the nature-nurture debate will likely find a=20 significant readership.

At the same time, evolutionary criticism likely has too narrow a = focus and=20 too technical a background for it to ever become much more than = "something like=20 a movement." Critical schools that achieve widespread institutional = power are=20 typically much more general in method and application. Whatever cachet = it gains=20 is much more likely to stem from its direct engagement with and = thoroughgoing=20 critique of poststructuralism, not from creating an army of critics who = go into=20 the classroom with Darwin in one hand and Dickens in the other. But = there may=20 well be a time in the not-too-distant future--Carroll suggests it's a = matter of=20 several decades, as the social sciences and humanities become more = comfortable=20 with the evolutionary paradigm--when undergraduates talk late into the = night=20 about monkeys, Milton, and the "obvious" connections between the = two.

Darwin and Dickens

A new breed of literary crtitics is using evolution = to=20 explain literature--and to challenge intellectual orthodoxy.