Studying literature through the lens of Darwinian evolution

[Syd A]

The following piece was published in today's issue of Science, the leading scientific journal in the US. I think it can make for an interesting thread.
[EDIT] You can read it here: http://xa.yimg.com/kq/groups/1292538/1734342585/name/Science-2011-Kean-654-6.pdf

[OrphanPip]

Science is technically the second place journal, Nature is still number one. Though, they're both the holy grails of science publishing, an article in either journal is a career maker.

I don't think this is particularly new, people have long been interested in the cognitive science behind aesthetics, after all that was essentially behind much of aesthetic criticism during the enlightenment. I'm not sure it's good literary criticism though. What does a literary critic really know about the cognitive and evolutionary influences on literature. It's probably work that is better conducted by evolutionary psychologist.

[Dodo25]

Great article! I totally agree that evolutionary thinking is essential to everything that is connected to humans, so it definitely includes art too. And as was pointed out, it can be to mutual benefit, evolutionary psychology can definitely learn about certain patterns by analyzing literature. The objection of 'it explains beauty away' is weird enough to demand its own evolutionary explanation.



Out with Freud, in with Darwin


YES! PLEASE people, do that (:

Anyone interested in specifics of merging evolutionary reasoning with the humanities might want to check out E.O. Wilson's 'Consilience', or the chapter on art in Pinker's 'The Blank Slate'.

[Syd A]

Science is technically the second place journal, Nature is still number one.

I said the leading scientific journal in the US. Nature is a British journal.



What does a literary critic really know about the cognitive and evolutionary influences on literature. It's probably work that is better conducted by evolutionary psychologist.
True. This is a vain attempt by "literary critics" to lend some credence to their discredited field by attaching themselves to a legitimate scientific discipline. They have a good reason to be concerned: decades of reading Marxism, feminism, and other leftist "isms" into everything have completely destroyed that formerly-respected field. This is essentially what the author of this piece is trying to say, albeit much more politely.

[Drkshadow03]

I have mixed feelings.

I think Darwinian theories of beauty and art can be interesting and effective at a Macro-level. For example, Denis Dutton's talk on Darwinian Theory of Beauty (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PktUzdnBqWI), which makes a plausible connection between shiny ancient teardrop artifacts for men to show off their sexual prowess by being able to waste time and resources, and connecting that to modern day diamond engagement rings. Where does our aesthetic tastes come from? Why do we have certain preferences? Etc.

I am little more leery when it comes to actual lit criticism of discussing individual works of art (i.e. novels and poems). The text itself should suffice. I don't think an analysis from a Darwinian perspective is really going to help me understand any better the differences between a Cubist painting by Picasso and a painting of the Creation by Michelangelo. I think the same would apply to literature and music.

Not to mention I think there are real problems with these extensions of Darwinian Theory even when left solely to broader discussions of aesthetic, especially when its presented as wholesale replacement for previous theories of aesthetics. Dutton in the video employs his Darwinian Theory of Beauty as a replacement for aesthetic theories that assume cultural standards dictate our aesthetic tastes. One way he attempts to disprove cultural standards is to imply we in fact all share similar aesthetic tastes across cultures (i.e. we all like a certain type of landscape of broad grassy plains with a watery oasis that reflects our ancient survival needs). Except even if there are vague shared evolutionary assumptions of beauty (i.e. we like shiny things) and we can easily adapt between cultures to find things beautiful from other cultures (which is another example he uses), anyone can walk into an Art Museum or read literature from a vastly different culture and see there are also significant differences in aesthetic tastes across cultures too. I mean do any of you personally find foot binding (http://uploads.neatorama.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/boundfeet1.jpg) to be aesthetically pleasing? We could look at two images of a flower, one from China and one painted by Monet or pretty much any other Western visual artists (not mimicking Asian styles), and I bet most of you would be able to tell which one is Chinese. Let alone image with completely different content based on different cultural roots such as images of Buddha versus images of Jesus. Basically, I'm not saying he's completely wrong in applying Darwinian Evolutionary Theory of Beauty, but rather I think he's wrong to outright dismiss cultural theories of aesthetics and not recognize the two can actually compliment each other.



True. This is a vain attempt by "literary critics" to lend some credence to their discredited field by attaching themselves to a legitimate scientific discipline. They have a good reason to be concerned: decades of reading Marxism, feminism, and other leftist "isms" into everything have completely destroyed that formerly-respected field. This is essentially what the author of this piece is trying to say, albeit much more politely.

Discredited by whom exactly? Yes, there is a lot of bad criticism out there, which is badly written and full of incomprehensible pseudo-philosophy. Yes, there are a lot of whacky literary theories that seem more sophistry than anything else. And I realize many other disciplines make fun of these developments and rightfully should. But there are plenty of serious literary critics that have profound and insightful things to say about individual literary works still working today in universities who still adhere to a very traditional method of approaching and teaching literature. Not to mention even if many critics themselves are clownish doesn't mean good literature and the study of it has lost its importance.

[Syd A]

Discredited by whom exactly?

By the rest of the academic community. English departments are the laughing stock of modern American universities.



But there are plenty of serious literary critics that have profound and insightful things to say about individual literary works still working today in universities who still adhere to a very traditional method of approaching and teaching literature.

True. Unfortunately, they are a very small minority. They, and the serious scholarship they conduct, are becoming extinct. And, with the academic hiring and tenure system the way it is, their chances aren't good.

[JBI]

I don't know, to me Darwinian criticism seemed to be in an ebb, the new big one is ecocriticism, which is in many ways interesting.

As for English departments being a laughing stock, well, depends where. The English departments of English speaking countries tend to be amongst the largest departments, and also tend to create Ph. D.s the fastest (in the States, for instance, within 8 years). That being said, they aren't a laughing stock, it's just that sciences in general, and those associated with them get off on pretending they are all that matter. In actuality though, people well know that humanities courses in many ways act as the funding for the sciences.

Still, I have my reservations about American English departments (And the bulk of Canadian ones too). There are problems there, which have not been sorted out the way they have in England and Canada, as well as elsewhere.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

By the rest of the academic community. English departments are the laughing stock of modern American universities.
According to what? I've just never heard this before, other than the usual looking down upon the arts gets by the people in the more practical fields.

Really, I don't see why we have to narrow down literar criticism to only look at literature through certain views. Why not look at a piece in both Darwinian ideas and Freudian? Does one have to negate the other?

[Syd A]

According to what? I've just never heard this before, other than the usual looking down upon the arts gets by the people in the more practical fields.


That being said, they aren't a laughing stock, it's just that sciences in general, and those associated with them get off on pretending they are all that matter.

The narrow-mindedness of scientists, engineers, and other practical folk is a sad fact of modern academia. A lot of the scorn poured upon English departments is unjustified and reflects the arrogance and ignorance of people in practical fields.

Nevertheless, much of this scorn is justified. The Alan Sokal Affair, although anecdotal, exposed the abysmally low level of intelligence, scholarship, and rigor that goes on in the humanities, especially English, sociology, and cultural studies. The laughably low salaries of English professors in some universities also reflect the prestige these professors enjoy.

[JCamilo]

Well, the problem then is for laughing: Marx and Freud are darwinists. Marx ideas are already application of evolution (not to mention both owned to Malthus many ideas) to economy, and to him economy dictade all culture, included aesthetic vallues. And Freud was another darwinists, his greatest dream was to proposed a theory which would rival in status to darwin. His entire idea of progressive evolution of language, human ages, etc are darwinists. He certainly analysed works from the point of view of human psychological needs.
And the study of language on XX century shifted because of reckonition of human nature influence on the formation of communication. Casirer was already darwinist in this sense. For god's sake, even ideas such a nazism are born from misleading darwnism which considered biological evolution as linked to cultural evolution. People do know our narratives reflect us from quite while.

Does not matter much his perspective, he better say something interesting.

[OrphanPip]

Well, the problem then is for laughing: Marx and Freud are darwinists. Marx ideas are already application of evolution (not to mention both owned to Malthus many ideas) to economy, and to him economy dictade all culture, included aesthetic vallues. And Freud was another darwinists, his greatest dream was to proposed a theory which would rival in status to darwin. His entire idea of progressive evolution of language, human ages, etc are darwinists. He certainly analysed works from the point of view of human psychological needs.
And the study of language on XX century shifted because of reckonition of human nature influence on the formation of communication. Casirer was already darwinist in this sense. For god's sake, even ideas such a nazism are born from misleading darwnism which considered biological evolution as linked to cultural evolution. People do know our narratives reflect us from quite while.


Marx and Freud believing in evolution did not make their approaches Darwinian. Besides the fact that the Communist Manifesto predates The Origin of Species by a decade. And placing an emphasis on a biological influence on human thought and behavior is not innately Darwinian. Nor is evolution an idea unique to Darwin, it is the inclusion of natural selection that distinguishes Darwinian evolutionary theory from say Divine or Lamarckian evolutionary theories.

Nor would a Darwinian interpretation of a text be the same as a psychoanalytic interpretation. Psychoanalysis tries to show how a work reflects something of human psychology. Where as a Darwinian approach would ask what aspects of human evolution cause us to favour such a work over others.

[Heteronym]

I wish literary criticism would just go back to the old days, when a scholar had to be well-read in the history of literature and read the text attentively, without the poison of -isms, which is what Darwinism is too.

[JBI]

I wish literary criticism would just go back to the old days, when a scholar had to be well-read in the history of literature and read the text attentively, without the poison of -isms, which is what Darwinism is too.

There is still an "ism". there is always an Ism - even Doc Johnson falls under an ism. Critical approach has been there as long as critical literature.

The bulk of criticism isn't dominated by schools or approaches, but rather jut incorporates ideas from one source or another.

This new one has ideas, but the science writer clearly doesn't understand it really, since he just thinks its English failure trying to borrow clarity from Darwin, which is nonsense. But, then again, leave it to scientists to screw up when it comes to close reading.

Seriously, if they complain about ivory towers and whatnot, those science brains for the most part sit in their labs anti-socially stroking their own egos.

[JCamilo]

Marx and Freud believing in evolution did not make their approaches Darwinian. Besides the fact that the Communist Manifesto predates The Origin of Species by a decade. And placing an emphasis on a biological influence on human thought and behavior is not innately Darwinian.

Biology is Darwin. The very basis. If you place in XIX and XX century biological emphasis, you are bringing Darwin...

Anyways, the basis of Marx theories is in the Capital. Published after Origin. And Marx was not only a fan of Darwin as stated that Darwin work gave him the necessary imput for the class conflict. Plus, there is several elements of darwin ideas that are much darwinist (conflict for the economic enviroment, adaptation to new technologies, etc).

The same goes for Freud, which ideas start with a biological aspect before moving to the field of language. He was a declared fan of Darwin and at his time, it was impossible to be out of Darwin influece.


Nor is evolution an idea unique to Darwin, it is the inclusion of natural selection that distinguishes Darwinian evolutionary theory from say Divine or Lamarckian evolutionary theories.

Yes, Evolution was a trait of the XIX century and affected several fields, not just biology. Darwin hated the name even. At this point, I must say when I say Darwninsm, I do not mean Darwin, as he was the less darwnist of all, since the notion of progress was not found on his theory.


Nor would a Darwinian interpretation of a text be the same as a psychoanalytic interpretation. Psychoanalysis tries to show how a work reflects something of human psychology. Where as a Darwinian approach would ask what aspects of human evolution cause us to favour such a work over others.

Biologists try do show how the hive and hive structures reflect the evolution, just like they do when they study communication between species. Animal psychology is inside biology and it is darwiniam.

[Freudian Monkey]

A very interesting article, thanks for posting it here.

A few questions came to my mind while reading it through.


Carroll also cites the work of Michelle Scalise Sugiyama, a cognitive scientist at the University of Oregon, Eugene, who reinterpreted the Oedipus tragedies. Standard commentary has been dominated by Freudian theories about people's repressed desires to have sex with their parents, but she argues that, in light of widespread anthropological evidence of cultural taboos against incest, that reading simply isn't tenable.

The article doesn't mention in detail which kind of evidence Michelle Scalise Sugiyama is referring to in her study, but if she is just arguing that in most cultures there are taboos against incest, how does this exactly negate Freud's argument? Wasn't it Freud's whole point in Totem and Taboo that in some cultures incest has been penalized through taboos?


Gottschall says the resistance to Darwinian lit crit among literary scholars reminds him of resistance among religious groups to evolution itself. “There's the fear that if you were able to explain the arts and their power scientifically, you'd explain them away,” he says. “Humanities are the last bastion of magic.”

So humanities = religion? Isn't the main difference between those two precisely the fact that humanities it it's own worst critique while religion wants to control/suffocate all criticism against it and control people's way of thinking? Gottschall clearly wants to make himself look like a patriot; a lonely whistleblower in the corrupted world of literature criticism. I think he has already realized himself that there is really nothing left to "explain away" and he's just trying to figure out a way explain away why his theories haven't gotten the glorious reception he was expecting.

[OrphanPip]

This new one has ideas, but the science writer clearly doesn't understand it really, since he just thinks its English failure trying to borrow clarity from Darwin, which is nonsense. But, then again, leave it to scientists to screw up when it comes to close reading.

Sam Kean is a journalist not a scientist.


Biology is Darwin. The very basis. If you place in XIX and XX century biological emphasis, you are bringing Darwin...

No, not necessarily. I doubt Marx knew anything that was remotely related to a Darwinian understanding of the world. Especially since evolutionary psychology was relatively undeveloped until the 1980s. Nor did he have the developed understanding of evolution that came about with the New Synthesis in the mid-20th century.

Moreover, it is not necessary to include evolutionary history into an explanation of cognitive function. I.e. we don't need to know how a brain developed to necessarily know how a brain works. If anyone is influenced heavily by Darwin it is Jung, Freud's theories rely heavily on inductive reasoning from his personal experiences with patients. His innovation is the concept of changeable and developed personalities, none of which relies on anything Darwinian. Not everything that mentions a change or a progression makes it Darwinian, that's just silly.



Anyways, the basis of Marx theories is in the Capital. Published after Origin. And Marx was not only a fan of Darwin as stated that Darwin work gave him the necessary imput for the class conflict. Plus, there is several elements of darwin ideas that are much darwinist (conflict for the economic enviroment, adaptation to new technologies, etc).

Those things are not Darwinian though, adaptation is not what makes Darwinian evolution Darwinian, it is the process of natural selection. Changing organisms, adaptation, competition, these ideas all predate Darwin by a century. They are all part of Larmarckism for example.



The same goes for Freud, which ideas start with a biological aspect before moving to the field of language. He was a declared fan of Darwin and at his time, it was impossible to be out of Darwin influece.

Sure, but there is no direct application of evolutionary theory in Freud. Nor is there such an application in Marx.



Yes, Evolution was a trait of the XIX century and affected several fields, not just biology. Darwin hated the name even. At this point, I must say when I say Darwninsm, I do not mean Darwin, as he was the less darwnist of all, since the notion of progress was not found on his theory.

Nor does a contemporary Darwinism mention progress. Social Darwinism equates the change with progressiveness and improvement.



Biologists try do show how the hive and hive structures reflect the evolution, just like they do when they study communication between species. Animal psychology is inside biology and it is darwiniam.

Yes, but it doesn't require the application of Darwinian theory. I am a microbiologist, we rely more heavily on theory from chemistry and genetics and I can tell you the only courses I took on evolutionary biology were electives I took out of personal interest. The closest we come to relating to Darwinian theory is by generalizing conclusions coming from model organisms. Just because something involves biology doesn't necessitate it involve any evolutionary theory. Freud's conclusions in no way try to demonstrate how his conclusions come about evolutionary influences, instead he relies on a developmental approach.

[JBI]

Yes. but he is a science journalist, not a literary journalist - there is a difference in perspective and audience.

[JCamilo]

No, not necessarily. I doubt Marx knew anything that was remotely related to a Darwinian understanding of the world. Especially since evolutionary psychology was relatively undeveloped until the 1980s. Nor did he have the developed understanding of evolution that came about with the New Synthesis in the mid-20th century.

Well, it is irrelevant if Marx really understood Darwin (someone who was against any application of his theory for human societies) considering even close friends misunderstood Darwin. Marx was influenced by Darwin (and i have no idea why psychology is related here), was a fan of Darwin, had a copy of Origin, send letters to him and said clearly it. Pretty much like Freud, which mentions Darwin now and then, included as source of inspiration when he was young.


Moreover, it is not necessary to include evolutionary history into an explanation of cognitive function. I.e. we don't need to know how a brain developed to necessarily know how a brain works. If anyone is influenced heavily by Darwin it is Jung, Freud's theories rely heavily on inductive reasoning from his personal experiences with patients. His innovation is the concept of changeable and developed personalities, none of which relies on anything Darwinian. Not everything that mentions a change or a progression makes it Darwinian, that's just silly.

Except when he claims the new personalities are developed to adjust to sittuation and protect the "weaker" traits of the personality by "enforcing" the stronger and more suited traits of personality.

Anyways, Freud initial theories tried always to pull a link to biology (he starts studying brain forms, etc, then effects of chemicals, he tried to make a link of human biological development with mind development, etc). Later, with his lack of sucess he turned to the psychoalize and language method. But even when talking about dreams he used Darwin as example. It does not need to go far, Freud was another avid reader and misinterpreter of Darwin.




Those things are not Darwinian though, adaptation is not what makes Darwinian evolution Darwinian, it is the process of natural selection. Changing organisms, adaptation, competition, these ideas all predate Darwin by a century. They are all part of Larmarckism for example.

But Lamarck had not the impact on other fields that Darwin had. Petrarch is not the inventor of the sonnet, it is Darwin that made the field popular, when Origin became the first scientific best seller. And I did not said Darwin invented it, I said those are darwinian traits on those writers, which is reckonized by both.




Sure, but there is no direct application of evolutionary theory in Freud. Nor is there such an application in Marx.

Been darwining is not being a biologist and apply it on Economy. There is direct traits on both, as both reckonized it. Marx for example says to Engels :
"Darwin’s work is most important and suits my purpose in that it provides a basis in natural science for the historical class struggle."
Then I wont discuss any longer. Marx is darwinian as he himself reckonizes.



Nor does a contemporary Darwinism mention progress. Social Darwinism equates the change with progressiveness and improvement.

No, nor does a contemporary darwinist mmentions progress... imagine, the century of positivism does not mention progress.
Social Darwinism is contemporary to Darwin. He went against it. And just like all other evolutionary ideas, progress predates darwin or was part of the "philosophy of the area." Darwin was notable for being pessimist, but he is mostly misunderstood.




Yes, but it doesn't require the application of Darwinian theory. I am a microbiologist, we rely more heavily on theory from chemistry and genetics and I can tell you the only courses I took on evolutionary biology were electives I took out of personal interest. The closest we come to relating to Darwinian theory is by generalizing conclusions coming from model organisms. Just because something involves biology doesn't necessitate it involve any evolutionary theory. Freud's conclusions in no way try to demonstrate how his conclusions come about evolutionary influences, instead he relies on a developmental approach.

You do not need to apply darwin theory. It is not your field inside biology. But all your study is under darwin, you can at beast suggest corrections to him (or to the evolutionary theories) but it is the undeniable predominat theory about species. You, yourself is a darwinist, but then again, be a darwinist is not be a biologist. Social Darwinists are not biologist (otherwise they would not do such mistakes) and they are darwinists.

[Syd A]

Just because something involves biology doesn't necessitate it involve any evolutionary theory

Oh, that, from a microbiologist?!

Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution - Theodosius Dobzhansky, in an aphorism that should be on every biologist's lab bench

[JCamilo]

I guess he means from the biologist view, Evolutionary Biology is a field of Biology, not all Biology. So, you may study microbiology without studying the evolution of microrganism, which does not imply he ignores evolution.

I have the tendecy to think, that most of our disagreement is that Pip talks as biologist, so, evolution and darwinism are something specific to him, not the broad's philosophical sense I use and I think must be applied everytime it is applied outside biology.

[OrphanPip]

Oh, that, from a microbiologist?!

Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution - Theodosius Dobzhansky, in an aphorism that should be on every biologist's lab bench

Oh please. When you're trying to find out the details of a biochemical pathway, you aren't trying to determine how the pathway was selected for. Sometimes it's far more expedient to answer the proximate causes rather than the ultimate. Nothing is a one way pathway, everything in biology doesn't follow from evolution. Some obviously goes in the opposite direction and informs evolutionary theory. Before we could relate genetics to evolutionary theory we first had to determine how heredity functioned at a basic level.

(Edit: Microbiology as a field of biology owes far more to Pasteur and Koch's development of Germ Theory than it does to Darwin)

[Syd A]

Oh please. When you're trying to find out the details of a biochemical pathway, you aren't trying to determine how the pathway was selected for. Sometimes it's far more expedient to answer the proximate causes rather than the ultimate. Nothing is a one way pathway, everything in biology doesn't follow from evolution. Some obviously goes in the opposite direction and informs evolutionary theory. Before we could relate genetics to evolutionary theory we first had to determine how heredity functioned at a basic level.

(Edit: Microbiology as a field of biology owes far more to Pasteur and Koch's development of Germ Theory than it does to Darwin)

I agree with all that. The point is that evolution is the basic unifying principle of biology. Eventually, all ultimate causes, all the "whys", must be elucidated via evolution. You can never put all the pieces together without it, although you can develop individual pieces without it.

This is why, theoretically at least, the idea of evolutionary literary criticism is not that far-fetched: human beings are living organisms, and literature is something in which humans engage. By these reasons alone, it is theoretically conceivable to apply the most rudimentary of all biological principles - evolution - to the study of literature. Whether or not the attempt has been successful is a different question altogether.

[kelby_lake]

I do agree that at times the study of English is mystified by teachers, particularly in high school, where it's implied that there are people who 'get' literature and people who don't. In my opinion, as long as you can read a broad amount of literature and have observational and deductional skills which you can articulate, then you can do English.

[JBI]

I do agree that at times the study of English is mystified by teachers, particularly in high school, where it's implied that there are people who 'get' literature and people who don't. In my opinion, as long as you can read a broad amount of literature and have observational and deductional skills which you can articulate, then you can do English.

True to an extent, but there are people who have a particular genius for reading some things, and are undoubtedly incredibly insightful and great scholars.

Likewise, criticism and research may seem in the background, especially in a field like English, but it has its place and its use, which often doesn't directly effect the world outside of the discourse.

The difference between an avid reader and Northrop Frye is immense - even if one was dedicated, Frye was simply a genius, and that is why he is still read.

[JCamilo]

I agree with all that. The point is that evolution is the basic unifying principle of biology. Eventually, all ultimate causes, all the "whys", must be elucidated via evolution. You can never put all the pieces together without it, although you can develop individual pieces without it.

This is why, theoretically at least, the idea of evolutionary literary criticism is not that far-fetched: human beings are living organisms, and literature is something in which humans engage. By these reasons alone, it is theoretically conceivable to apply the most rudimentary of all biological principles - evolution - to the study of literature. Whether or not the attempt has been successful is a different question altogether.

The problem that is done quite awhile. Most cultural studies depends on biology to tell the evolution of human. The very (wrong) notion that certain disciplines or learning is different according human age was a clumsy evolutionary attempt applied to pedagogy. It was pretty commun on XIX the study of mythology according evolutionary aspects (the idea of monotheism to be a development of human according to our own development). It is not new.

Take for example, everyone already said that use of certain texts develop the perception and skill to it's text (a bit lamarkism, but anyways) and this with technology develpment which allowed the publishing (or survival if you take) of certain "species" which wouldn't in the past explain the raise of prose. Like I said, Marx, Freud, Levy-strauss, Adorno, etc were all "evolutionists" like most of the intelectual thinking of XIX century and early XX century. It is not new at all.

[cyberbob]

LOL I tried speaking about art through a biological/neurological perspective before, and douchebags like JCamilo blindly contradicted every single post I made.

[JCamilo]

Do you understand that contradicting posts someone publishes is not something bad. People do it when they disagree?

[Dodo25]

I love this thread!

[Drkshadow03]

LOL I tried speaking about art through a biological/neurological perspective before, and douchebags like JCamilo blindly contradicted every single post I made.

That seems like a pretty petty response. Are people never supposed to disagree with you on this forum?

[cyberbob]

That seems like a pretty petty response. Are people never supposed to disagree with you on this forum?

I said BLINDLY contradict.

As in, every single post I made, he would reply to negatively, most of the time misconstruing what I said.

[JCamilo]

I do not even remember you.

[Drkshadow03]

So does anyone actually have anything to say about the ideas of the OP? I feel like most of the responses have talked around the topic without actually talking about it.