Lecture 10 Term 2
A New Bio-Turn?
Herbert Spencer, 1820-1903
A society in search of natural laws:
Spencer designed an all-embracing
conception of evolution as the progressive
development of the physical world, biological
organisms, the human mind, as well as
human culture and societies -- all before
Darwin!
His conception was based on two
major principles:
• continuity of natural law (Thomas
Malthus)
• Utility (based again on Jeremy
Bentham)
‘This survival of the fittest, which I have
here sought to express in mechanical
terms, is that which Mr. Darwin has called
'natural selection', or the preservation of
favoured races in the struggle for life.’ –
Spencer in regard to his economic theories!
Expressed a great longing for societal
order on the basis of the laws of nature
and thus the natural sciences
(positivism).
‘True liberty is nothing else than
the rational submission to the
preponderance of the laws of
Spencer relies on Malthus
1798; 1803 edition
read by
Darwin
‘The power of population is so superior to the
power of the earth to produce subsistence for
man…’
‘ongoing struggle of existence over subsistence
’ -- according to Malthus God directed
The Reverend Thomas Robert
Malthus, 1766 – 1834
Note: term’ survival of the fittest’ (not from
Malthus but Herbert Spencer who read Darwin.
Darwin then used it in later editions of his
book.
Darwin’s ideas also fitted well to another
accepted social theory of the time:
Utilitarianism
Principle:
‘greatest happiness of all’ - which is
measurable through measuring ‘pain’ and
‘pleasure’ in humans
Jeremy Bentham 1748 – 1832
‘Nature has placed mankind under the
governance of two sovereign masters, pain
and pleasure. It is for them alone to point
out what we ought to do, as well as to
determine what we shall do. On the one
hand the standard of right and wrong, on
the other the chain of causes and effects,
are fastened to their throne. They govern
us in all we do, in all we say, in all we think
..’
(The Principles of Morals and Legislation
It follows: the appropriate mode of action is the one that
maximises utility -- maximising total benefit and reducing
suffering or the negatives effects of human action
Darwin collects data during his
5 year journey
Darwin in the 1840s, after his voyage and his marriage to Emma Wedgewood
Darwin’s voyage on the HMS Beagle 1831-1836
Darwin’s Finches
But what is the mechanism that pulls all this data together??
Darwin finds it – like Spencer - in Malthus work and his ‘struggle for
existence’
Malthus ideas bring all of Darwin’s data together and stands at the
core of Darwin’s concepts of ‘natural selection’ and adaptation
concepts.
Adaptation and
‘natural selection’
Three central elements of Darwin’s argument:
•
in every population of organism, there are differences – or
variations between individuals.
• Such variations ensure that certain organisms are better
suited to triumph in the struggle for existence than there are
other organisms.
• Finally, better suited --or more ‘fit’ – organisms will produce
more viable offspring then those which are less suited. And
the characteristics of fitter organisms are therefore
selectively passed on to the following generation.
Overall: Nature selects certain characteristics without any
foresight or conscious design. Over a number of generations the
characteristics of fitter organisms comet to dominate
population, and hence the characteristics of a species change.
1871
1872
Darwin’s offers his own view on the raging debate on ‘human evolution’ in
two, by now, famous publications
Inherent problem of such anthropomorphism in
evolutionary theory until today:
The reading into animal nature, which, in fact, is
characteristic of human nature. These ‘results’ from
reading animal culture are then used to confirm
continuity between humans and animals.
Such logic, by the way, undergirds much of
contemporary Darwinian discussion of human
behaviour of Darwinists today such as O.E. Wilson or
and Richard Darwkin.
Darwin transfers his ideas of natural selection to the study of Man:
‘The difference in mind between man and the higher animals,
great as it is, is certainly one of degree and not of kind.’
‘…the senses and the intuitions, the various emotions and
faculties, such as love, memory, attention, curiosity, imitation,
reason, &c, of which man boats, may be found in an incipient, or
even sometimes in a well-developed condition, in the lower
animals.’
Due to their shared nervous
system/brain expressions are
not unique to humans
according to Darwin –
compares expressions in
man/animals
Claim:
Consciences and moral obligations ultimately derived from persistent social instincts
which existed in both animals and humans. Therefore, he can claims for a
continuum between animals and humans. (Even religious sentiments and hope
existed in animals according to Darwin!)
Social Darwinism:
Def.: a name given to various theories of society which emerged in the United
Kingdom, North America, and Western Europe in the 1870s, and which claim to
apply biological concepts of natural selection and survival of the fittest to sociology
and politics.
Social Darwinists generally argue that the strong should see their wealth and
power increase while the weak should see their wealth and power decrease. It
applies biological concepts of natural selection and ‘survival of the fittest to
sociological and political models of society. Social Darwinists generally argue
that the strong should see their wealth and power increase while the weak
should see their wealth and power decrease. (so it is conservative in its
political nature)
Different social Darwinists have different views about which groups of people
are the strong and the weak, and they also hold different opinions about the
precise mechanism that should be used to promote strength and punish
weakness. Many such views stress competition between individuals in laissezfaire capitalism, while others motivated ideas of eugenics, racism,
imperialism, fascism, Nazism, and struggle between national or racial groups.
Important: Today’s Darwinism and new disciplines based on that such as
evolutionary psychology practice modern forms of social Darwininism!
Inherent problem of such anthropomorphism in
evolutionary theory until today:
The reading into animal nature, which, in fact, is
characteristic of human nature. These ‘results’ from
reading animal culture are then used to confirm
continuity between humans and animals.
Such logic, by the way, undergirds much of
contemporary Darwinian discussion of human
behaviour of Darwinists today such as O.E. Wilson or
and Richard Darwkin.
Biohistory
Biohistory as a form of sociobiology first popularised in the 1970/80?
‘… sociology and other social sciences as well as the
humanities’, he argued, ‘are the last branches of biology
waiting to be included in the Modern Synthesis’ (O.E.
Wilson)
Critique back then: under the mantel of ‘objectivity’ and
‘neutrality’ of scientific research, inequalities of race or
gender were cemented as being ‘natural’.
We are told that biology is no longer deterministic:
‘Genes are but one of the many players that
act and are acted upon to determine how an
organism will develop and interact with its
environment. At the level of ultimate
explanation, there is a rich debate on such
basis matters as the possibility that evolution
has selected not simply for organisms that look
out for themselves, but for organisms that
cooperate with other members of the same
species, including, non relatives. According to
these evolutionary biologist, cooperative
behaviour would favour the survival of
societies in which a substantial number of
individuals are willing to work together for
mutual benefit or to make sacrifices for the
good of all, which over time would increase
the proportion of co-operators and altruists in
the species as a whole.’
‘But both historians and biologists –
particularly evolutionary biologists and
palaeontologists – are interested in the past as
well as the present. Both believe that the past
holds the key to understand the present and
both recognise that the past must be studies
through critical analysis of fragmentary records
rather then through repeatable, controlled
experiments. Both believe in the importance of
contingency. Fascinating and unpredictable
events can only be understood and with the
benefit of hindsight…’ (p. 1496)
‘Genes are but one of the many players that act
and are acted upon to determine how an
organism will develop and interact with its
environment.’
‘Epigenetic processes thus give individuals and
populations the capacity to respond
biologically as well as culturally to changing
historical circumstances and to adapt quickly
to new or altered niches in the natural and
social world.’ (p. 1497)
But the problems are:
• What is ‘biology’? Only one subjects in over 30 within the ‘life sciences’
and they all depend on each other.
• Science is today techno-science
‘Most of the findings that have come out are essentially driven by the
technologies available. So you wouldn’t be able to do brain imaging without
the MRIs, the MEGs. So the science and the technologies are inextricable.
The machines both make possible the science and help shape how it is
understood…You can’t talk about science apart from the technology
anymore. It’s meaningless.’ (Steven and Hilary Rose)
A history of the species? Is this what historians will do?
‘Both historians and biologists believe in the
importance of culture – in the ability of the member
of many species of birds and mammals to learn from
one another so they can improve their chances that
they, their kin, or their societies will survive and
strive.’ (p. 1495)
Bias towards the knowledge of the natural sciences
in use of rhetoric:
‘Recent advances in neuroscience, for instance,
confirm the intuition of historians who believe that
culture, class, and prejudice have a profound impact
on the human psyche.’
Further problems:
• Unstableness of scientific knowledge
• Techno-science and capitalism
‘For the contemporary biotechnological corporation to exist and survive,
it is (to search investors, for instance, who would need to sink huge
amount of money into a biotech venture to enable it in the first place)
credibility rather than truth that is essential to start with. At some
fundamental level, it does not matter whether the promissory vision of a
biotech company are true or not, as long as they are credible.’
• More investment into PR than into the new scientific developments
How to trust scientific results?
‘Similar conflicts of interest and biases exist in virtually
every field of medicine’, she reports, ‘particularly those
that rely heavily on drugs or devices. It is simply no
longer possible to believe much of the clinical research
that is published, or to rely on the judgment of trusted
physicians or authoritative medical guidelines. I take no
pleasure in this conclusion, which I reached slowly and
reluctantly over my two decades as an editor of The
New England Journal of Medicine .’ (Marcia Angell, Drug
Companies & Doctors: A Story of Corruption)
‘Life is big business’ –steep rise of fraudulent research
Will we need an Office of Research Integrity (ORI) to check our scientific sources?
Will the bio-turn lead us into a new exciting area of historical research?
Will we overcome the lingustic turn?