The nasty brutish “Darwinism” concocted by I-don’t-give-a-crap free-marketers

| October 18, 2009 | 9 Replies

Many conservatives have a “hate-love relation with biology.”  Primatologist Frans De Waal terms this “the first great paradox of the American political landscape” in his new book, The Age of Empathy: Nature’s 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 “evolution” to justify treating each other in contemptuous ways. This has got to stop, because this modern version of “Social Darwinism” 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 Waal’s book, I can see that De Waal has launched a sustained broadside against the commonly expressed perspective that evolutionary theory equates to “social Darwinism,” an approach embraced by many conservatives.  The idea of social Darwinism is that “those who make it [successfully in life] shouldn’t let themselves be dragged down by those who don’t.” The idea was championed by British political philosopher Herbert Spencer in the 19th century. Spencer “decried attempts to equalize society’s playing field,” and said of the poor that “the whole effort of nature is to get rid of such, to clear the world of them, and make room for better.”  De Waal comments that the business world fully embraces this idea and characterizes competition as a “law of biology” that will improve the human race. We thus have “the second great paradox of the American political landscape”:

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 keeps nature 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 “will take care of society’s woes.” De Waal notes, however, “the invisible hand . . . did nothing to prevent the appalling survival-of-the-greatest scenes in New Orleans” following Hurricane Katrina in 2005.

Why are the assumptions about biology always on the negative side? [p. 4] . . . What we need is a complete overhaul of assumptions about human nature.  Too many economists and politicians model human society on the perpetual struggle they believe exists in nature, but which is a mere projection.  [p. 7] . . . Our bodies and minds are made for social life, and we become hopelessly depressed in its absence [p. 10] . . .  [It is a great myth] that human society is a voluntary creation of autonomous men. [p.20] . . . When our ancestors left the forest and entered an open, dangerous environment, they became prey and evolved a herd instinct that beats that of many animals.  We excel at bodily synchrony and actually derive pleasure from it. [p. 20]. . . . All primates have this tendency [to develop trusting alliances], and some even invest in the community as a whole.  Instead of just focusing on their own position, they demonstrate group-oriented behavior. [p. 34]

De Waal’s main message is that we are NOT condemned by nature to treat each other badly.  Though competition is part of the picture, we have  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 don’t need to care about people who are struggling to make it because nature is “dog eat dog.”  That approach to life is a cop-out; it is certainly not justified by Darwin’s 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 “Why have we been left behind like animals?”, 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 “animals don’t necessarily leave one another behind.” 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 aren’t always at war with each other. “We 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.” (Page 3).

De Waal points out that in earlier times, rich people didn’t need any justification to mistreat poor people. “With 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.” (Page 31)  But then came the industrial revolution and the haves needed some new justification to shove down the have-nots:

In the industrial revolution, the newly created upper-crust had a more difficult time ignoring the plight of the poor. Herbert Spencer’s social Darwinism really came in handy to them. What do you do about the poor?  “It was perfectly honorable to climb the ladder of success without looking back. This is how nature works,” Spencer assured them, thus removing any pangs of conscience the rich might feel.”  That same message was picked up by Ayn Rand, who “scoffed 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.”

It is at this point that De Waal’s 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. “The ability to function in a group and build a support network is a crucial survival skill.” (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 “group oriented behavior improves the quality of the social environment not just for the individuals who show it, but for everyone else as well.” (Page 36)

The next time someone claims that “the free market takes care of everything” 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 mangling legitimate evolutionary science and baldly expressing their short-term self-centeredness.

Share

Tags: , , ,

Category: Community, Cultural Evolution, Evolution, Good and Evil, Human animals, Meaning of Life, Social justice

About the Author ()

Erich Vieth is an attorney focusing on consumer law litigation and appellate practice. He is also a working musician and a writer, having founded Dangerous Intersection in 2006. Erich and his wife, Anne Jay, live in the Shaw Neighborhood of St. Louis, Missouri, where they are raising their two extraordinary daughters.

Comments (9)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. ShaneG says:

    I think scale has a fair amount to do with it as well – although humans in small groups can do very well (and can put group requirements ahead of individual requirements) it does not work well as the size of the group expands.

    The larger group starts breaking into smaller 'tribes' which then compete against each other (left vs right and all the subgroups implied on each side of that equation).

    The smaller groups back up and support their own members (the 'ditto' factor in any weblog) but will fight against any concept outside the groups accepted reality regardless of any proof (this applies to any group – it's not politically biased).

  2. Jay Fraz says:

    Great article and post : As the property rights that are required to form a "free market" does not occur in nature, it is difficult to argue that a free market is natural. Believing that requires a serious case of confirmation bias based on an incorrect understanding of the framework of life.

  3. Erich Vieth says:

    [M]y main argument against the invisible hand is based on fundamental evolutionary principles, not human evolution per se. If there is anything that we can say with confidence, it is that individual selfishness does not automatically lead to adaptive societies. Evolutionists have agreed upon this since the 1960's and it would be supremely naïve to claim otherwise. Adaptive societies in all species require special conditions that in human terms can be called regulation. The invisible hand metaphor is dead for this reason alone."

    David Sloan Wilson
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-sloan-wilson/

Leave a Reply


Notify me of followup comments via e-mail. You can also subscribe without commenting.