Anthropology Now
ISSN: 1942-8200 (Print) 1949-2901 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/uann20
A Catholic Atheist and His Good Monkeys
Cameron Brinitzer & Nicolas Langlitz
To cite this article: Cameron Brinitzer & Nicolas Langlitz (2015) A Catholic Atheist and His Good Monkeys, Anthropology Now, 7:3, 118-124
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19428200.2015.1103622
Published online: 18 Dec 2015.
Submit your article to this journal
View related articles
View Crossmark data
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=uann20
Download by: [41.223.51.38] Date: 18 December 2015, At: 23:35 books and arts Harris have gone militant, several primatolo- gists have offered alternative configurations of science and religion that do not conform A Catholic Atheist and to the polemics between godless Darwinism and Christian creationism that have shaped
118 anthropology NOW Volume 7 • Number 3 • December 2015
Anthropology Now, 7:118–124, 2015 • Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group, LLC ISSN: 1942-8200 print / 1949-2901 online • DOI: 10.1080/19428200.2015.1103622 Figure 1. Female bonobo at San Diego Zoo Safari Park catching food thrown into her enclosure. Photo courtesy of Michael Seres.
and practices, but in the deep history of the ity. Since the publication of Good Natured in human species: “I have heard people echo 1997, de Waal’s primary target has been the Dostoevsky’s Ivan Karamazov, exclaiming, ‘If view that morality is just a thin veneer con- there is no God, I am free to rape my neigh- cealing people’s nasty natural tendencies.3 bor!’ Perhaps it’s just me, but I am wary of This bleak assessment of human nature has any persons whose belief system is the only given rise to an anti-naturalist ethic, which thing standing between them and repulsive found its most prominent expression in Rich- Downloaded by [41.223.51.38] at 23:35 18 December 2015 behavior. … Why not assume that our hu- ard Dawkins’ The Selfish Gene. Contrary to manity, including the self-control needed for the opinion of many social constructionist a livable society, is built into us? … Humans critics who mistook sociobiology as drawing must have worried about the functioning of from the moral authority of nature to sup- their communities well before current reli- port the radically individualist moral order gions arose, which occurred only a couple of of Thatcherism and Reagonomics, Dawkins millennia ago. Biologists are unimpressed by emphasized that he was not advocating a that kind of timescale.” morality based on evolution, but wanted to The book continues de Waal’s campaign warn his readers “that if you wish, as I do, against the so-called veneer theory of moral- to build a society in which individuals co-
Cameron Brinitzer and Nicolas Langlitz A Catholic Atheist and His Good Monkeys 119 operate generously and unselfishly towards associated with eugenic dreams of improv- a common good, you can expect little help ing the species. Although multilevel analysis, from biological nature. … Let us under- which integrates all levels of selection from stand what our own selfish genes are up genes and individuals to groups and spe- to, because we may then at least have the cies, has recently been revived and become chance to upset their designs, something a new paradigm, de Waal continues to “re- that no other species has ever aspired to.”4 coil” from evolutionary scenarios that stress Historically, de Waal traces this view back the group level, reaffirming the sociobiolo- to Thomas Henry Huxley, whose aggressive gists’ premise that selection only acts on in- defense of evolutionary theory against the dividual organisms because divisible groups Anglican Church earned him the sobriquet and species do not act as genetic units. But of “Darwin’s Bulldog” — in de Waal’s eyes just as beautiful music could be composed a terrible misnomer since “Darwin’s writing in Ludwig van Beethoven’s filthy apartment, massively contradicts Veneer Theory.” Taking de Waal sees no contradiction in assuming recent behavioral research to support Dar- that the ruthless process of natural selection win’s speculation that morality grew out of could engender genuine altruism, at least on our animal instincts, de Waal sets out to de- the psychological level. fend Darwin from these latter-day Darwinists Such psychological altruism is not opposed who oppose linking evolution and morality. to selfishness, de Waal argues. He writes that It may be noteworthy that de Waal’s recu- the 1992 discovery of mirror neurons (first in peration of Darwin is not exactly straightfor- macaques, the reader is reminded), which ward. Attempting to provide a natural histori- are activated both when primates carry out cal explanation of how moral behavior might an action and when we perceive others do- have evolved led Darwin to believe that ing the same thing, was “of equal importance natural selection operated on multiple levels. to psychology as the discovery of DNA has “A high standard of morality,” Darwin wrote, been for biology.” This is only the most prom- “gives but a slight or no advantage to each inent of many findings leading de Waal to individual man and his children.”5 Outstand- believe that “our brain has been designed to ing bravery may in fact make one less, rather blur the line between self and other.” If emo- than more likely to survive and leave prog- tions are mirrored by a similar mechanism, Downloaded by [41.223.51.38] at 23:35 18 December 2015 eny. Darwin overcame this theoretical diffi- culty of explaining unselfish acts by imagin- ing the evolutionary value of another sort of legacy: in acting for the good of his group, de Waal sees no contradiction in an individual might excite and strengthen in assuming that the ruthless process others social virtues which, if shared, could of natural selection could engender increase the fitness of the group as a whole. genuine altruism, at least on the In the course of the 20th century, however, group theories of selection became widely psychological level. considered a scientific heresy, irredeemably
120 anthropology NOW Volume 7 • Number 3 • December 2015 this contested theory suggests, an organism of anthropology in the first place. De Waal’s would be physically affected by the distress anecdotes about prosocial behavior in other of others and the difference between selfish animals fuel a social imaginary, in which a and unselfish behavior thereby dissolved. In moral order emerges from lower instincts de Waal’s cosmology, the capacity for em- and passions rather than divine command- pathy and altruism endows not only humans ments or rational reflection. He challenges but all primates with a this-worldly analogue the mistaken belief in “a top-down process in of agape, the Christian which people formu- God’s love of human- late the principles and kind. The zoological De Waal’s anecdotes about then impose them on counterpart to the Par- prosocial behavior in other animals human conduct.” As able of the Good Sa- fuel a social imaginary, in which a morality comes from maritan, whose active within — “it’s part of moral order emerges from lower charity allowed him our biology” — hu- instincts and passions rather than to step beyond the mans do not require bounds of ethnic com- divine commandments or rational directives from above munity and rescue a reflection. to explain or guide it. wounded Jew at the “The big challenge,” roadside, is de Waal’s as de Waal sees it, “is oft recounted anecdote of a bonobo who to move forward, beyond religion, and espe- tried to help a stunned bird regain its capac- cially beyond top-down morality.” ity to fly after hitting a glass wall (apparently But there is a familiar hitch. When it showing appreciation for the specific needs comes to questions regarding the conduct of of a bird, for bonobos have no wings). This life, de Waal laments, “What alternative does naturalization of beneficence rearticulates a science have to offer? Science is not in the hallmark of 18th century secular humanism business of spelling out the meaning of life in the vocabulary of 21st century behavioral and even less in telling us how to live our sciences. lives.” He criticizes evangelical atheists for What de Waal is looking for among pri- pitting science against religion as though the mates is the assurance that a social order two were competing as sources of knowledge Downloaded by [41.223.51.38] at 23:35 18 December 2015 without God is possible. In the face of an regarding the same phenomena: “We face anti- and posthumanist tradition ranging from two distinct sets of questions, one related to Heidegger and French poststructuralism to physical reality and the other to human ex- current attempts to devise an “anthropology istence.” Citing Stephen Jay Gould’s notion beyond the human,” de Waal’s evolutionary of science and religion as “non-overlapping anthropology reanimates the political quest magisteria,” de Waal writes that the two for a humanist society compatible with hu- “occupy separate spheres of knowledge.” man nature, which inspired 18th century En- Of course, empirically speaking, this is not lightenment philosophers such as Rousseau true. As the philosopher of biology Michael and Hume to launch the intellectual project Ruse asserts, religious people — and not just
Cameron Brinitzer and Nicolas Langlitz A Catholic Atheist and His Good Monkeys 121 Christian fundamentalists — do make onto- gested, “let us try to teach generosity and al- logical claims: if not about Mary’s virginity, truism.”8 Beneficence is acquired socially, it faith healing and other wonders, then about requires a culture that promotes doing good. the existence of God, God’s creation of the In Dawkins’ eyes, religions are simply a ques- universe or the special cosmological status tionable way of achieving this goal. By con- of humans, which is associated with Homo trast, de Waal feels confident that prosocial sapiens’ unique endowment of distinctive behavior is deeply rooted in biological na- qualities and abilities.6 De Waal and the neo- ture. As far as moral behavior is concerned, atheists resemble those blind men touching cultural differences matter little: Dutch an elephant to learn what it is like. It seems Catholics, Kenyan Pentecostals, Brooklyn as if de Waal is groping for the moral end of Hasidim, Tibetan Buddhists and British athe- religion while the new atheists feel about its ists are all primates who share with capuchin epistemic and metaphysical parts, consider- monkeys an aversion to inequity and with ing God’s existence “a scientific hypothesis bonobos the ability to empathize. like any other.”7 Having been brought up What does matter is the almost universal Catholic in Den Bosch, a Dutch city that for human penchant for religion in general. Here centuries has been celebrating temporary de Waal follows the functionalist tradition role reversals and social liberty during carni- running from Émile Durkheim through Pascal val, de Waal does not conceal the alienation Boyer, which views religion as “an adapta- he feels from the iconoclastic zeal driving tion that permits human groups to function the scientistic Beeldenstorm of his fellow in- harmoniously.” De Waal reanimates a social fidels. Even as an atheist, de Waal maintains evolutionist narrative, presenting religion as a catholic attitude toward religion. both more primitive and more fundamental His tolerance leads de Waal to downplay than science. Unlike scientific reasoning, the new atheists’ own which in the history moral assessments of of our species came religion. For the lat- De Waal reanimates a social into being only lately, ter, the Abrahamic evolutionist narrative, presenting religion appears to be religions may preach phylogenetically an- religion as both more primitive and certain prosocial be- cient — a fact which Downloaded by [41.223.51.38] at 23:35 18 December 2015 more fundamental than science. haviors, but they also de Waal, in good condone intergroup Haeckelian manner, violence, sexist dis- also finds reflected in crimination and homophobia. If one opposes human ontogenesis: “Contrast the ease with naturalism to culturalism rather than super- which children adopt religion with the long naturalism, de Waal’s indulgence seems and laborious road young people travel to due to more than his liberal and accepting achieve a Ph.D. around the age of thirty.” temperament: he is actually a more thor- Dawkins, on the other hand, wants readers oughgoing naturalist than Richard Dawkins. to flinch when they hear phrases such as “Because we are born selfish,” Dawkins sug- “Catholic child” or “Muslim child” because
122 anthropology NOW Volume 7 • Number 3 • December 2015 “children are too young to know where they natural inclination toward religious commu- stand on such issues, just as they are too nity-building fosters social cohesion — and young to know where they stand on econom- that appears to be a good, or shall we say, ics or politics.”9 De Waal’s naturalization of well-adapted thing for a social species such religion has a seemingly paradoxical rami- as Homo sapiens. fication. While he vigorously rejects veneer Thus de Waal’s scientific worldview al- theory in the realm of moral philosophy, it is lows him to acknowledge what Durkheim recapitulated in his anthropology of science: called the “secular utility” of religion. As an “Religion has always been with us and is un- atheist humanist, he tolerates religion not likely to ever go away, since it is part of our because he accepts the validity of religious social skin. Science is rather like a coat that truth claims but because he deems such civil- we have recently bought.” ity crucial to fostering a benevolent social or- Consequently, de Waal’s assessment of der in a world populated by religious people: the sciences’ social function is ambiguous. “Tolerance of religion, even if religion is not As a good modern, diligently separating facts always tolerant in return, allows humanism from values, he has “trouble seeing how sci- to focus on what is most important, which is ence and the naturalistic worldview could to build a better society based on natural hu- fill the void and become an inspiration for man abilities.” Charles Taylor argues that the the good.” And yet, despite such intermit- emergence of humanism in the 18th century tent rejections of the naturalistic fallacy, de was contingent upon a double movement. Waal occasionally betrays another take: While the universe was disenchanted, culti- “Science has the potential to affect our social vating people’s confidence in their own pow- and moral outlook. … Conversely, existen- ers of moral ordering created new sources of tial questions feed into science. … In many moral direction and inspiration. “The locus areas, it is hard to tell where our worldview of the highest moral capacities was identi- ends and science begins, and vice versa. We fied as in ‘human nature’,” Taylor writes.10 need to step beyond a simple dichotomy Not unlike his Enlightenment predecessors, between the two and consider the whole of de Waal promotes a vision of human nature human knowledge.” Maybe science can’t tell that includes innate empathy and a bent for people what to do, but empirical research by solidarity. In this contemporary version, these Downloaded by [41.223.51.38] at 23:35 18 December 2015 some anthropologists and sociologists of re- moral passions are rooted in primate evolu- ligion suggests to de Waal that humankind’s tion. Although de Waal reminds readers that humanism is nonreligious as opposed to antireligious, he also notes that “the main Cultivating people’s confidence in ingredients of a moral society don’t require religion, since they come from within.” His their own powers of moral ordering relative politeness toward believers should created new sources of moral not belie his own secular stance: “I am all for direction and inspiration. a reduced role of religion, with less empha- sis on the almighty God and more on human
Cameron Brinitzer and Nicolas Langlitz A Catholic Atheist and His Good Monkeys 123 potentials. This is nothing new, of course; it is Notes the humanist agenda.” Among the alternative configurations of 1. Jane Goodall, “Why It Is Time for a Theolog- science and religion currently emerging in ical Zoology,” in Wenn sich Tiere in der Theologie primatology, de Waal’s position contrasts tummeln: Ansätze einer theologischen Zoologie, with Goodall’s. Since her adolescent fanta- ed. Rainer Hagencord (Regensburg: Pustet, 2010), sies about serving as a missionary in the of- 16. ficially godless Soviet Union, Goodall has 2. Napoleon A. Chagnon, “Fission in an Am- azonian Tribe,” The Sciences 16, no. 1 (1976): never abandoned her Christian faith. The 14–18; Noble Savages: My Life Among Two Dan- expression she gave to her religiosity in the gerous Tribes — the Yanomamo and the Anthro- speech quoted early in this review is a mysti- pologists, Reprint edition (New York: Simon & cal one, conjuring up a unity of the human, Schuster, 2013), 7–10, 325. the animal and the divine in the face of a 3. Frans de Waal, Good Natured: The Origins sublime aesthetic and spiritual experience of of Right and Wrong in Humans and Other Ani- nature. De Waal, on the other hand, shows mals (Cambridge (MA): Harvard University Press, little interest in such inwardness. As could 1997). be expected from a primatologist whose pro- 4. Richard Dawkins, The Selfish Gene (New motion of research on prosocial behavior is York: Oxford University Press, 1976), 2. unmatched, he centers his account on the 5. Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man, and social side of religious life. Selection in Relation to Sex (Princeton: Princeton Given that The Bonobo and the Atheist University Press, 1981), 166. 6. Atheism: What Everyone Needs to Know was written for a broad, not necessarily aca- (New York: Oxford University Press, 2015), 112. demic audience, it should not come as a sur- 7. Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion (Lon- prise if some cultural anthropologists find de don: Bantam Press, 2006), 50. Waal’s accounts of “science” and “religion” 8. Dawkins, The Selfish Gene, 2. to be painted with too broad a brush. How- 9. Dawkins, The God Delusion, 3. ever, at a time when many culturally oriented 10. Charles Taylor, A Secular Age (Cambridge researchers are trying to go beyond the na- (MA): Harvard University Press, 2007), 245. ture/culture divide by including other spe- cies in their ethnographic writing, it is all the Downloaded by [41.223.51.38] at 23:35 18 December 2015 more important to engage with de Waal and Cameron Brinitzer is a graduate student in the other thought-provoking primatological writ- Anthropology Department at The New School for ers who address the kind of questions a gen- Social Research. eral audience still expects anthropologists to answer. Read alongside the works with which it is in conversation, de Waal’s new Nicolas Langlitz is associate professor of Anthro- book provides an opportunity to explore the pology at The New School for Social Research wide spectrum of epistemological, ontologi- cal and political positions so often smudged under the label of naturalism.
124 anthropology NOW Volume 7 • Number 3 • December 2015