Dangerous Intersection Blog
By
Erich Vieth on October 18th, 2009
The nasty brutish ÒDarwinismÓ
concocted by I-donÕt-give-a-crap free-marketers
Many
conservatives have a Òhate-love relation with biology.Ó Primatologist
Frans De Waal terms this Òthe first great paradox of the American political
landscapeÓ in his new book, The Age of
Empathy: NatureÕs Lessons for a Kinder Society. In this new book, De
Waal has produced another tome of lively writing and thoughtful analysis,
reminding us of our exquisite human animal roots. He is out to set the
record straight on a gnawing social issue: too many people invoke ÒevolutionÓ
to justify treating each other in contemptuous ways. This has got to stop,
because this modern version of ÒSocial DarwinismÓ paints a highly selective and
distorted view of the kind of animals we humans are based on a wildly
inaccurate distortion of how natural selection works.
Although I am
not even halfway into De WaalÕs book, I can see that De Waal has launched a
sustained broadside against the commonly expressed perspective that
evolutionary theory equates to Òsocial Darwinism,Ó an approach embraced by many
conservatives. The idea of social Darwinism is that Òthose who make it
[successfully in life] shouldnÕt let themselves be dragged down by those who
donÕt.Ó The idea was championed by British political philosopher Herbert
Spencer in the 19th century. Spencer Òdecried attempts to equalize societyÕs
playing field,Ó and said of the poor that Òthe whole effort of nature is to get
rid of such, to clear the world of them, and make room for better.Ó De
Waal comments that the business world fully embraces this idea and characterizes
competition as a Òlaw of biologyÓ that will improve the human race. We thus
have Òthe second great paradox of the American political landscapeÓ:
Whereas the
book found in most American homes and every hotel room urges us on almost every
page to show compassion, social Darwinists scoff at such feelings, which only
keep major from running its course. Poverty is dismissed as proof of laziness,
and social justice as a weakness. Why not simply let the poor perish?
Many of these
conservatives embrace the metaphor of the invisible hand, arguing that this
invisible hand ÒweÕll take care of societyÕs woes.Ó De Waal notes, however,
Òthe invisible hand, however, did nothing to prevent the appalling
survival-of-the-greatest scenes in New OrleansÓ following Hurricane Katrina in
2005.
De WaalÕs main
message is that we are NOT condemned by nature to treat each other badly.
Rather, we have also evolved to be predominantly groupish and peace-loving
beings who are well-tuned to look out for each other. Not that we always look
out for each other admirably, but there is plenty of reason to conclude that
human animals are highly social in an empathetic way. Keep this book
handy for the next time someone claims that they donÕt need to care about
people who are struggling to make it nature is Òdog eat dog.Ó That
approach to life is a cop-out; it is certainly not justified by DarwinÕs work.
De Waal is an
excellent writer who presents us with thoughtful nuggets and challenges on
every page of his book. Speaking of Katrina, De Waal writes (on page 2) that
his morning newspaper screamed ÒWhy have we been left behind like animals?Ó,
which was a quote from one of the people who was stuck without food and
sanitation at the Louisiana Superdome. De Waal takes great issue with this
headline because Òanimals donÕt necessarily leave one another behind.Ó De Waal
backs up his claim with dozens of anecdotes illustrating that evolution has
honed many animals, including primates like us, to take care of one another.
Animals arenÕt always at war with each other. ÒWe tend to focus on wars, terror
threats, globalization, and petty political scandals, yet the larger issue is
how to combine a thriving economy with a humane society. It relates to health
care, education, justice, and-as illustrated by Katrina-protection against
nature.Ó (Page 3).
It frustrates
De Waal that so many people invoke evolution to treat each other in
contemptuous ways. He points out that in earlier times, rich people didnÕt need
any justification to mistreat poor people. ÒWith their blue blood, the nobility
considered itself a different breed . . .Not that they felt absolutely no
obligation toward those underneath them-hence the expression noblesse oblige-but
they had no qualms living in opulence, feasting on meat, slurping fine wine,
and driving around in gilded carriages, while the masses were close to
starving.Ó (Page 31)
In the
industrial revolution, the newly created upper-crust had a more difficult time
ignoring the plight of the poor. Herbert SpencerÕs Social Darwinism really came
in handy to them. What do you do about the poor? ÒIt was perfectly
honorable to climb the ladder of success without looking back. This is how
nature works,Ó Spencer assured them, thus removing any pangs of conscience the
rich might feel.Ó That same message was picked up by Ayn Rand, who
Òscoffed at the idea that success comes with moral obligations. She reached
millions of enthusiastic readers with her message that egoism is no vice, but
rather a virtue.Ó
It is at this
point that De WaalÕs story is really only getting started. He draws upon
nonhuman primate behavior in great depth as he demonstrates a powerful and
ubiquitous communal principle at work in nature. ÒThe ability to function in a
group and build a support network is a crucial survival skill.Ó (Page 33). What
animals naturally develop these trusting alliances?
All primates
have this tendency, and some even invest in the community as a whole. Instead
of just focusing on their own position, they demonstrate group-oriented
behavior. This is most evident in relation to social harmony. In many species
of primates, you see altruism, reconciliation, conflict resolution and attempts
to break up fights and maintain order. This has been shown in carefully
controlled situations (page 35).
The bottom
line is that Ògroup oriented behavior improves the quality of the social
environment not just for the individuals who show it, but for everyone else as
well.Ó (Page 36).
In short, the
next time someone claims that Òthe free market takes care of everythingÓ or
that evolution means that the poor should fall to the wayside and that we have
no naturally imposed obligation to care one whit about it, we need to point out
that they are not talking about the type of nature commonly displayed by real
life social animals like us. Instead, they are ignoring legitimate science and
merely expressing their short-term self-centeredness.
Link:
http://dangerousintersection.org/2009/10/18/the-nasty-brutish-%E2%80%9Cdarwinism%E2%80%9D-concocted-by-i-don%E2%80%99t-give-a-crap-free-marketers/