Because of the relation of evolutionary theory to the Ideology of Progress (see also last few posts), it has become the dominant paradigm of analysis within the human sciences. Virtually every aspect of human life - physical, mental, and social - is explained within an evolutionary framework. Take, for example, this recent headline.
Evolution is so hegemonic to modern thought that even the most respected scientists hardly bat an eye when these studies employ contradictory or nonsensical logic. Further proof that science is a human activity that proceeds according to dominant ideological frameworks that are deeply embedded in the social order.
Evolutionary studies are quite formulaic:
1. Take any "trait."
2. Assume that it was adaptive at "the time" when humans evolved.
3. Come up with a reason why it would be adaptive.
4. Voila. Said "trait" is hardwired into our physical makeup via evolution.
Here are some of the many reasons why the formula contradicts the espoused principles of Darwinian evolution and defies logical thought (I will respond specifically according to each numbered step above):
1. The objects that are defined as "traits" are heterogenous in nature: some are simple, discrete physical properties (i.e. attached earlobes); some are slightly more complex, non-discrete, and environmentally-influenced physical characteristics (height); some are abstract concepts that generalize variable behavior (personality); and some are social constructs (race). The problem is, many of the "traits" to which are attributed evolutionary causes do not exist as discrete, bounded objects (see post on disease), have more social reality than physical reality, and, even if one assumed they were coded in the genes (a dubious assumptions based on the previous point), would be governed by so many different genes interacting in complex ways with each other and the environment, that it would be impossible for natural selection to act upon them in any coherent way in such a short span of time (the period of human existence is relatively short).
2. There are two fundamental problems in assuming that an existent trait must have been adaptive at the time humans evolved. First, just because something exists does not imply that it is adaptive. Genes and traits are able to survive among a population if they do not affect individual's reproductive capacities in any way (after all, why would they "die out" if the individuals who possess them are still able to pass them on to their offspring?). An evolutionary perspective that considers adaptability independently of reproductive capacity is more Lamarckian than Darwinian.
Second, "the time" that humans evolved does not exist. Evolution, at least as it is conceived by Darwin, is a continuous process. There was not one single moment or discrete period of time at which humans suddenly appeared.** And humans should not have stopped evolving. There is no reason to assume that the adaptability of any given trait is less pertitent to conditions today or in the recent past than a million years ago. There was nothing magical about that period of time.
**There is some debate about how exactly homo sapiens should be categorized (for example, should Neaderthals be considered a sub-species?) and from which population they emerged. Regardless, whether homo sapiens evolved from a local African population, or from the global population of predecessors, this would have occured via a gradual process of speciation (a gradual accumulation of differences, without a distinct "dividing line.") A species is typically defined as a population that can interbreed. Thus, if the population remains intact, speciation may not occur so much like forking branches on a tree, but result from a gradual accumulation of changes that would prevent an earlier member of the population from breeding with a current member, if this were possible. However, any line of demarkation that is made is purely arbitrary.
3. It is possible to come up with some reason why nearly any trait could have possibility been adapative at a given point of time. It is kind of like playing 7 degrees of Kevin Bacon. It is also circular logic. There is virtually no way to verify any of these claims. What passes for rigorous scientific inquiry are essentially unverifiable, sophmoric manipulations of thought.
4. While the first three steps contradict principles of evolution ostensibly espoused by the scientists who manufacture these types of studies, it poses no conflict with Darwinian theory to suppose that any trait is hardwired into humans' genetic makeup. In this case, it is more a suspension of generic scientific protocol that is at play (much like step 3). Many of the phenomena studied by evolutionary scientists are much too complex and socially determined to ever ascertain which components are genetic. The fact that one is able to come up with some hypothetical reason why a trait could be adaptive does not constitute proof of its genetic basis. Furthermore, the types of tests that are devised to assess whether a phenomenon is physically determined are undertaken by selecting precisely those aspects that are physically manifested in order to define the trait - thus using what one is aiming to prove as the basis of the proof itself. That is why scientists so often find exactly what they sought to find in the first place.
Take the previous example (linked to in the first paragraph) about gossip.
-First, the concept of "gossip" itself is a social construction. It is culturally-specific, not universal. In this study, the word "gossip" is used to label the phenomenon: unflattering information about another person. In common parlance, however, the word "gossip" often coveys something about the mode of tranmission as well: for example, news reports about Congressman Weiner sending inappropriate pictures and text messages are not considered "gossip," while a water-cooler conversation about a coworker's rumored affair is. This study, then, is stripping the word "gossip" of much of its rich social meaning. Furthermore, even in its more narrowly defined form, as used by the study, the concept still contains some ambiguities. For what purpose is the information being shared? What is the relationship between giver and receiver and the person who is its subject? Sharing information about a person that neither giver nor receiver have actually met, just because it is entertaining (a pop star was flashing her crotch), is different than sharing information about a person with whom the receiver is intimately familiar, for the purpose of avoiding some undesired event (your girlfriend cheated on all of her past boyfriends).
-Second, these researchers fallaciously equate the length at which a person looked at a picture with "how they feel" and "how they see" the person. The internal states of the participants are not being measured. All the researchers know is how long the participants looked at various pictures. It is wrong to infer interal states based on that information alone.
-Third, the fact that the participants happened to spend more time looking at the pictures to whom negative information had been attributed does not prove that anything in particular is "hardwired" into the brain. Perhaps the negative information happened to be more interesting. This appears to be the case from the examples given in the article: "threw a chair at his classmate" versus "passed a man on the street." What would have been the outcome if "had a bad day" was pitted against "won the Nobel Peace prize"? Moreover, did the researchers control for gender, race, or other physical features of the pictures? What kinds of people took part in this study, and under what conditions? One should be very careful about making grand pronouncements about the innate characteristics of all human beings based on such flimsy and potentially socially determined evidence.
-Fourth, the fact (if true) that negative information about other individuals catches people's attention today does not mean that such an interest need to have been adaptive in the past, or is adaptive now. It is obvious that gossip can have beneficial as well as harmful effects, often simultaneously. Why would the harmful effects have been absent thousands of years ago?
-Fifth, assuming gossip actually were some discrete, non-culturally-constructed entity, how many genes would it take to code for such a complex phenomenon? Could it have such a profound effect on reproductive capacity that this whole constellation of genes was affected within the span of ... what... (how long do they consider "the time that humans evolved"?) ... say, a million years?
The moral of the story is: scientists are people. They are no more intelligent than, and just as fallible as, everyone else. View scientific research with caution.
View scientific research with caution because it is not produced by "neutral" minds, and neither are its effects socially insignificant. For instance, when a "trait" is explained within an evolutionary framework, this serves to naturalize the phenomenon and erase its social determinations. The ultimate result is that social processes and the artifacts of social action are pushed beyond the realm of criticism and challenge.
No comments:
Post a Comment