Social Darwinism Science and Myth in Anglo-American Social Thought

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

Social Darwinism Science and Myth in Anglo-American Social Thought Social Darwinism Science and Myth in Anglo-American Social Thought 'With a new preface ROBERT C. BANNISTER Temple University Press Philadelphia 1979 Contents Acknowledgments ix Introduction: The Idea of Social Darwinism 3 1 The Scientific Background 14 2 Hushing Up Death 34 3 Philanthropic Energy and Philosophic Calm 57 4 Amending the Faith 79 5 William Graham Sumner 97 6 The Survival of the Fittest Is Our Doctrine 114 7 Neo-Darwinism and the Crisis of the 1890s 137 8 A Pigeon Fanciers' Polity 164 9 The Scaffolding of Progress 180 10 The Nietzsche Vogue 201 11 Beyond the Battle: The Literary Naturalists 212 12 Imperialism and the Warriar Critique 226 Epilogue: From Histrionics to History 245 Notes 252 Index 285 Preface 1. Social Darwinism: Science and Myth asks readers to do two things more difficult than they may initially appear: first, to recon­ sider debates over social and public policy issues from the 1870s through the 1910s with an openness and sensitivity they would wish for their own statements; and second, to reconceptualize the issue of social Darwinism 1 so as to ask, not what individuals or groups were social Darwinists, but how the label itself functioned in debates in the six decades following the publication of the Origin of Species. A reconsideration alone yields two conclusions, both important al­ though neither ground-breaking. One is that Gilded Age defenders of free market mechanisms, individualism, and laissez faire (so-called "conservatives" but in reality liberals by mid-nineteenth-century stan­ dards) rarely laced their prose with appeals to Darwinism and virtually never in the way described in conventional accounts. 2 Rather, they were suspicious of, if not downright frightened by, the implications of the new theory. Such was even the case with Herbert Spencer and his American disciples-the stereotypical textbook social Darwinists -whose world view remained essentially pre-Darwinian. 3 The second conclusion is that New Liberals, socialists, and other advocates ofposi­ tive government appealed openly and with far greater regularity to Darwinism to support their causes. 4 These appeals typically contrasted false readings of Darwin (i.e., of the opposition) with a correct one (Le., their own). Although important in their way, these two points are essentially preliminary. To ask how the epithet social Darwinism functioned, on the other hand, is to turn the conventional account rather literally on its head. Not only was there no school (or schools) of social Darwinists: the term was a label one pinned on anyone with whom one especially disagreed. The so-called conservative social Darwinists of the 1880s (laissez faire liberals, utilitarians, and the like) were, as social Darwinists, the in­ vention of their opponents to the left. Eventually, the label was used, not merely to caricature the "let-alone-philosophy" (as it was termed), but to denigrate programs of other state activists one happened to oppose, whether New Liberals, fellow socialists, or eugenicists. 5 Un- xii : Preface like Methodist or muckraker (two labels that were also initially pe­ jorative), social Darwinism is singular in that virtually no one adopted it as a badge of honor. A social Darwinist, to oversimplify the case, was something nobody wanted to be. This argument, admittedly, turns on rather careful definition of two key terms in the title: social Darwinism and myth. A social Darwinist, for present purposes, is anyone who embroidered his (and, far less frequently, her) message with the phrases natural selection, the struggle for existence, or the survival of the fittest, or who otherwise invoked the authority of Charles Darwin or the Origin of Species in discussing social policy. These rhetorical appeals might be extensive or brief and might be summoned in defense of any position, whether laissez faire liberalism or state socialism, pacifism or militarism, egali­ tarianism or racism. But they must have been present. For this rea­ son, not everyone with whom one happens to disagree can qualify for the label. A classical economist, arguing for free competition on the grounds that it guarantees low prices, for example, is not thereby a social Darwinist. Nor are all racists, sexists, and militarists, each of whom has and continues to flourish quite without benefit of Darwin. 6 References to "nature," "natural," or even the "social organism," in the absence of tell-tale Darwinian phrases, do not count either. In fact, the phrases struggle for existence, natural selection, and survival of the fittest (used singularly or in combination) were widely perceived as code words with relations to recognizable social ideologies and were not used casually. Such buzz words, as the historian Forrest McDonald has recently noted, provide clues to a broader range of atti­ tudes. In current discourse a reference to the "right to life" tells us considerably more than do the words themselves, just as in the 1780s reference to "bloodsuckers" revealed a good deal about the attitude of the speaker toward traders in public securities. 7 So, by the 1880s, the phrases struggle for existence and natural selection, as applied to so­ ciety, were catchwords used by those who opposed unrestricted com­ petition and the cult of individual success against those who allegedly espoused these values. For this reason, defenders of free enterprise or individual initiative invoked them at their peril. One evidence of these verbal conventions was the widespread use of quotation marks when the terms were used; another was the stylized nature of the refer­ ences. As with all linguistic conventions, there were occasional devia­ tions. But the outcry that typically greeted rare attempts to defend economic competition by likening it to the Darwinian struggle in na­ ture shows how firmly the conventions were established. Preface : xiii A second crucial term is myth, here used in the literary or anthropo­ logical rather than in the popular sense of simple untruth. As a compo­ nent of a more general ideology, myth refers to an image or metaphor designed to trigger reactions that reinforce that ideology. A metaphor of this sort, as the anthropologist Clifford Geertz has written, gains its power "precisely from the interplay between the discordant meanings it symbolically coerces into a unitary conceptual framework" and its success in overcoming psychic resistance to this coercion on the part of the reader or listener. When they misfire, such metaphors seem "mere extravagance"-an example being attempts to brand the Taft-Hartley Law of 1947 a "slave labor act" or, only slightly more effective, refer­ ences to military conscription in the 1960s as "involuntary servitude." Social Darwinism-as the view that natural laws of struggle and sur­ vival should be allowed to operate freely in human society-was (and essentially remains) such a metaphor. Myth, so conceived, does not simply distort or select in order to rationalize self-interest or to reduce role strain (the two views Geertz was opposing). Rather, it provides an emotional roadmap to render "incomprehensible social situations meaningful," and so to allow pur­ posive action. Such ideological symbols, Geertz adds, are most likely to take shape when political traditions and received religious and moral doctrines lose their directive power, a description that well fits late nineteenth-century America. 8 By any standard, the term social Darwinism was and remains a smashing success in dramatizing alleged outcomes in a world without social conscience or, it turns out, without social engineering. In view of some of the excesses ofthe purposive action that resulted, this success may well have been a mixed blessing. Had the label social Darwinism been merely a debating tactic, we might applaud the skill of those who forged so potent a rhetorical weapon in a culture still ambivalent about the claims of science. But it was more. Born in debate, the epithet took on a life of its own. For many New Liberals it was a lens that magnified and distorted evidences of actual "struggle" in American society. Left to its own devices, so the argument went, the social order was a Dar­ winian jungle. Extreme measures were needed to reestablish order. Thus, for example, the journalist Ray Stannard Baker interpreted evi­ dences of racial disorder as proof that Jim Crow laws were needed despite contrary evidence (recorded in his own notebooks) that segre­ gation laws were themselves the cause of racial clashes. Eugenicists likewise proposed to jettison rights of privacy and individual liberty to counter the indiscriminate breeding of the poor and dispossessed. xiv : Preface However one judges these cases, the point for present purposes is simply to underline the ideological context in which the concept func­ tioned. Two examples will illustrate the complexities involved. The first is Yale professor William Graham Sumner, conventionally pictured as the dean of "conservative" social Darwinists. 9 Although early influ­ enced by Malthus, during the 1870s and 1880s Sumner remained wary (and largely ignorant) of biological evolutionism, whether in the Spen­ cerian or Darwinian versions. During his years as an Anglican clergy­ man, he distinguished scientific method from the speculations and the­ ories hawked under its authority. Although he sprinkled some of his prose with Spencerisms during the 1870s ("progress . from the simple to the complex") and used Spencer's Study of Sociology (1874) in one of his classes, he remained suspicious of Spencerian grand theory. In the early eighties, Sumner learned the hard way that association with biological evolutionism could be hazardous to career. Attempt­ ing some too-clever epigrams on several occasions (the alternative to the "survival of the fittest" being the "survival of the unfittest"), he was besieged by criticism, even from his sometime-ally the Nation­ criticism that, in substance, anticipated later charges of social Dar­ winism. Meanwhile, a battle with Yale president Porter over his use of Spencer almost cost him his position in New Haven.
Recommended publications
  • Aristotle's Essentialism Revisited
    University of Missouri, St. Louis IRL @ UMSL Theses Graduate Works 4-15-2013 Accommodating Species Evolution: Aristotle’s Essentialism Revisited Yin Zhang University of Missouri-St. Louis, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: http://irl.umsl.edu/thesis Recommended Citation Zhang, Yin, "Accommodating Species Evolution: Aristotle’s Essentialism Revisited" (2013). Theses. 192. http://irl.umsl.edu/thesis/192 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate Works at IRL @ UMSL. It has been accepted for inclusion in Theses by an authorized administrator of IRL @ UMSL. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Accommodating Species Evolution: Aristotle’s Essentialism Revisited by Yin Zhang B.A., Philosophy, Peking University, 2010 A Thesis Submitted to The Graduate School at the University of Missouri – St. Louis in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree Master of Arts in Philosophy May 2013 Advisory Committee Jon D. McGinnis, Ph.D. Chairperson Andrew G. Black, Ph.D. Berit O. Brogaard, Ph.D. Zhang, Yin, UMSL, 2013, p. i PREFACE In the fall of 2008 when I was a junior at Peking University, I attended a lecture series directed by Dr. Melville Y. Stewart on science and religion. Guest lecturers Dr. Alvin Plantinga, Dr. William L. Craig and Dr. Bruce Reichenbach have influenced my thinking on the relation between evolution and faith. In the fall of 2010 when I became a one-year visiting student at Calvin College in Michigan, I took a seminar directed by Dr. Kelly J. Clark on evolution and ethics. Having thought about evolution/faith and evolution/ethics, I signed up for Dr.
    [Show full text]
  • Interpreting the History of Evolutionary Biology Through a Kuhnian Prism: Sense Or Nonsense?
    Interpreting the History of Evolutionary Biology through a Kuhnian Prism: Sense or Nonsense? Koen B. Tanghe Department of Philosophy and Moral Sciences, Universiteit Gent, Belgium Lieven Pauwels Department of Criminology, Criminal Law and Social Law, Universiteit Gent, Belgium Alexis De Tiège Department of Philosophy and Moral Sciences, Universiteit Gent, Belgium Johan Braeckman Department of Philosophy and Moral Sciences, Universiteit Gent, Belgium Traditionally, Thomas S. Kuhn’s The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (1962) is largely identified with his analysis of the structure of scientific revo- lutions. Here, we contribute to a minority tradition in the Kuhn literature by interpreting the history of evolutionary biology through the prism of the entire historical developmental model of sciences that he elaborates in The Structure. This research not only reveals a certain match between this model and the history of evolutionary biology but, more importantly, also sheds new light on several episodes in that history, and particularly on the publication of Charles Darwin’s On the Origin of Species (1859), the construction of the modern evolutionary synthesis, the chronic discontent with it, and the latest expression of that discon- tent, called the extended evolutionary synthesis. Lastly, we also explain why this kind of analysis hasn’t been done before. We would like to thank two anonymous reviewers for their constructive review, as well as the editor Alex Levine. Perspectives on Science 2021, vol. 29, no. 1 © 2021 by The Massachusetts Institute of Technology https://doi.org/10.1162/posc_a_00359 1 Downloaded from http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/posc_a_00359 by guest on 30 September 2021 2 Evolutionary Biology through a Kuhnian Prism 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Concepts-In-Scientific-Writing.Pdf
    J. Clifford Jones Concepts In Scientific Writing 2 Download free eBooks at bookboon.com Concepts In Scientific Writing 1st edition © 2015 J. Clifford Jones & bookboon.com ISBN 978-87-403-1091-7 3 Download free eBooks at bookboon.com Concepts In Scientific Writing Contents Contents Preface 6 1 Examination of selected scripts from previous generations of scientists 7 2 Logic in scientific writing 23 3 Haute vulgarisation in Science 30 4 Origins of selected scientific words 45 5 Newspapers and popular magazines 54 6 Use of figures of speech 65 Endnotes 78 www.sylvania.com We do not reinvent the wheel we reinvent light. Fascinating lighting offers an infinite spectrum of possibilities: Innovative technologies and new markets provide both opportunities and challenges. An environment in which your expertise is in high demand. Enjoy the supportive working atmosphere within our global group and benefit from international career paths. Implement sustainable ideas in close cooperation with other specialists and contribute to influencing our future. Come and join us in reinventing light every day. Light is OSRAM 4 Click on the ad to read more Download free eBooks at bookboon.com Dedicated to: Benjamin Rory David Borsaru Godson of the author. Download free eBooks at bookboon.com Concepts In Scientific Writing Preface. Preface A conventional guide to scientific writing will be concerned inter alia with such things as terminology, units and figures and diagrams. These are all necessary to good scientific writing. This book however is not so focused. It draws on history of science and on philosophy to give the reader sufficient background on these to provide him or her with ideas and insights which will be an aid to good writing.
    [Show full text]
  • Origins of the Myth of Social Darwinism: the Ambiguous Legacy of Richard Hofstadter’S Social Darwinism in American Thought
    Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization 71 (2009) 37–51 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jebo Origins of the myth of social Darwinism: The ambiguous legacy of Richard Hofstadter’s Social Darwinism in American Thought Thomas C. Leonard Department of Economics, Princeton University, Fisher Hall, Princeton, NJ 08544, United States article info abstract Article history: The term “social Darwinism” owes its currency and many of its connotations to Richard Received 19 February 2007 Hofstadter’s influential Social Darwinism in American Thought, 1860–1915 (SDAT). The post- Accepted 8 November 2007 SDAT meanings of “social Darwinism” are the product of an unresolved Whiggish tension in Available online 6 March 2009 SDAT: Hofstadter championed economic reform over free markets, but he also condemned biology in social science, this while many progressive social scientists surveyed in SDAT JEL classification: offered biological justifications for economic reform. As a consequence, there are, in effect, B15 B31 two Hofstadters in SDAT. The first (call him Hofstadter1) disparaged as “social Darwinism” B12 biological justification of laissez-faire, for this was, in his view, doubly wrong. The sec- ond Hofstadter (call him Hofstadter2) documented, however incompletely, the underside Keywords: of progressive reform: racism, eugenics and imperialism, and even devised a term for it, Social Darwinism “Darwinian collectivism.” This essay documents and explains Hofstadter’s ambivalence in Evolution SDAT, especially where, as with Progressive Era eugenics, the “two Hofstadters” were at odds Progressive Era economics Malthus with each other. It explores the historiographic and semantic consequences of Hofstadter’s ambivalence, including its connection with the Left’s longstanding mistrust of Darwinism as apology for Malthusian political economy.
    [Show full text]
  • The Evolutionary Foundations of Economics
    This page intentionally left blank The Evolutionary Foundations of Economics It is widely recognized that mainstream economics has failed to trans- late micro- consistently into macroeconomics and to provide endoge- nous explanations for the continual changes in the economic system. Since the early 1980s a growing number of economists have been trying to provide answers to these two key questions by applying an evolu- tionary approach. This new departure has yielded a rich literature with enormous variety, but the unifying principles connecting the various ideas and views presented are, as yet, not apparent. This volume brings together fifteen original articles from scholars – each of whom has made a significant contribution to the field – in their common effort to recon- struct economics as an evolutionary science. Using mesoeconomics as an analytical entity to bridge micro- and macroeconomics as well as static and dynamic realms, a unified economic theory emerges, offering an entirely new approach to the foundations of economics. is Professor of Economics and Director of the Institute of Economics at the University of St Gallen, Switzerland. The Evolutionary Foundations of Economics edited by Kurt Dopfer Cambridge, New York, Melbourne, Madrid, Cape Town, Singapore, São Paulo Cambridge University Press The Edinburgh Building, Cambridge ,UK Published in the United States of America by Cambridge University Press, New York www.cambridge.org Information on this title: www.cambridg e.org /9780521621991 © Cambridge University Press 2005 This book is in copyright. Subject to statutory exception and to the provision of relevant collective licensing agreements, no reproduction of any part may take place without the written permission of Cambridge University Press.
    [Show full text]
  • Darwin's Influence on Mendel: Evidence from a New Translation Of
    | PERSPECTIVES Darwin’sInfluence on Mendel: Evidence from a New Translation of Mendel’s Paper Daniel J. Fairbanks*,1 and Scott Abbott† *Department of Biology and †Department of Integrated Studies, Utah Valley University, Orem, Utah 84058 ORCID ID: 0000-0001-7422-0549 (D.J.F.) ABSTRACT Gregor Mendel’s classic paper, Versuche über Pflanzen-Hybriden (Experiments on Plant Hybrids), was published in 1866, hence 2016 is its sesquicentennial. Mendel completed his experiments in 1863 and shortly thereafter began compiling the results and writing his paper, which he presented in meetings of the Natural Science Society in Brünn in February and March of 1865. Mendel owned a personal copy of Darwin’s Origin of Species, a German translation published in 1863, and it contains his marginalia. Its publication date indicates that Mendel’s study of Darwin’s book could have had no influence while he was conducting his experiments but its publication date coincided with the period of time when he was preparing his paper, making it possible that Darwin’s writings influenced Mendel’s interpretations and theory. Based on this premise, we prepared a Darwinized English translation of Mendel’s paper by comparing German terms Mendel employed with the same terms in the German translation of Origin of Species in his possession, then using Darwin’s counterpart English words and phrases as much as possible in our translation. We found a substantially higher use of these terms in the final two (10th and 11th) sections of Mendel’s paper, particularly in one key paragraph, where Mendel reflects on evolutionary issues, providing strong evidence of Darwin’sinfluence on Mendel.
    [Show full text]
  • Darwinism and the Law: Can Non-Naturalistic Scientific Theories Survive Constitutional Challenge?
    DARWINISM AND THE LAW: CAN NON-NATURALISTIC SCIENTIFIC THEORIES SURVIVE CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGE? H. Wayne House* The entrance of Charles Darwin’s1 The Origin of Species2 changed the world. This is not because belief in evolution was a new and exciting theory unconsidered before this time, for indeed a variation of the view existed in many ancient cultures.3 In addition, several scientists already *H. Wayne House is distinguished professor of biblical studies and apologetics at Faith Seminary, Tacoma, WA, and a professor of law at Trinity Law School, California campus, of Trinity International University. He holds a J.D. from Regent University School of Law; Th.D., Concordia Seminary, St. Louis; M.Div., Th.M., Western Seminary; M.A., Abilene Christian University; B.A., Hardin-Simmons University. He has published over twenty books and scores of articles in the subjects of theology, law and ethics. I wish to thank James Stambaugh, librarian at Michigan Theological Seminary, for providing documentation. Also much appreciation to Eddie Colanter, Eric Rice, and Sean Choi, for their assistance in checking footnotes and/or providing sources for this article. 1 Charles Robert Darwin (1809-1882) was a British scientist who laid the foundation for modern evolutionary theory through his concept of the development of all forms of life through the gradual process of natural selection. He was born in Shrewsbury, Shropshire, England on February 12, 1809. Darwin originally went to study medicine at the University of Edinburgh but then dropped out in 1827 to prepare for becoming a clergyman in the Church of England by studying at the University of Cambridge.
    [Show full text]
  • OTTOMANS IMAGINING JAPAN: EAST, MIDDLE EAST, and NON-WESTERN MODERNITY at the TURN of the TWENTIETH CENTURY Ren É E Worringer Ottomans Imagining Japan
    PALGRAVE MACMILLAN TRANSNATIONAL HISTORY SERIES Akira Iriye (Harvard University) and Rana Mitter (University of Oxford) Series Editors This distinguished series seeks to develop scholarship on the transnational connections of societies and peoples in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries; provide a forum in which work on trans- national history from different periods, subjects, and regions of the world can be brought together in fruitful connection; and explore the theoretical and methodological links between transnational and other related approaches such as comparative history and world history. Editorial board: Thomas Bender , University Professor of the Humanities, Professor of History, and Director of the International Center for Advanced Studies, New York University Jane Carruthers , Professor of History, University of South Africa Mariano Plotkin , Professor, Universidad Nacional de Tres de Febrero, Buenos Aires, and member of the National Council of Scientific and Technological Research, Argentina Pierre-Yves Saunier, Researcher at the Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, France Ian Tyrrell , Professor of History, University of New South Wales Published by Palgrave Macmillan: THE NATION, PSYCHOLOGY AND INTERNATIONAL POLITICS, 1870–1919 By Glenda Sluga COMPETING VISIONS OF WORLD ORDER: GLOBAL MOMENTS AND MOVEMENTS, 1880S–1930S Edited by Sebastian Conrad and Dominic Sachsenmaier PAN-ASIANISM AND JAPAN’S WAR, 1931–1945 By Eri Hotta THE CHINESE IN BRITAIN, 1800–PRESENT: ECONOMY, TRANSNATIONALISM, IDENTITY By Gregor Benton
    [Show full text]
  • Teilgebieten Der Gesellschaft Sind Charakteristisch Für Diese Zeitschrift
    2 Deskriptionen der internationalen Rezeption in deutschen und amerikanischen soziolo- gischen Fachperiodika Der Materialbestand, der fünf deutsche Zeitschriften mit 105 Bänden und drei amerikanische Zeitschriften mit 69 Bänden umfaßt, enthält eine Grundgesamtheit von 5492 Artikel. Auf deut- scher Seite beträgt die Grundgesamtheit 2096, auf amerikanischer Seite 3396 Artikel. Dieses Ungleichgewicht zugunsten der amerikanischen Seite erklärt sich aus den im Durchschnitt er- heblich längeren deutschen Aufsätzen. Der breitere Materialbestand auf deutscher Seite spiegelt das heterogenere und umfangreichere Zeitschriftenspektrum wider. In den amerikanischen und deutschen soziologischen Fachzeitschriften konnten 1708 interna- tionale Artikel, 621 in den amerikanischen und 1087 in den deutschen, identifiziert werden. Da- von sind 1199 explizite Artikel (USA: 388, Deutschland: 811) und 509 exklusiv implizite Arti- kel (USA: 233, Deutschland: 276). Tabelle A 5 Quantitative Zusammenfassung der untersuchten Artikel nach Rezeptionsformen und Ländern Grundgesamtheit Internationale Arti- Explizite Artikel Implizite Artikel (Artikel) kel (Gesamt) Deutschland 2096 1087 811 276 USA 3396 621 388 233 Summe 5492 1708 1199 509 Diese Gesamtzahlen erfassen ausschließlich die quantitative Dimension der Untersuchung, sie dienen nicht als spezifische Ergebnisse. Durch die starke Heterogenität und Funktionsbreite der untersuchten Zeitschriften verbietet sich eine Analyse auf der Gesamtebene des Zeitschriften- spektrums. Die Analyse kann nur sinnvoll auf der Ebene
    [Show full text]
  • Sex, Biology, and Political Economy in the Nineteenth Century Ann Mari
    D R A F T THE X-CLUB: SEX, BIOLOGY, AND POLITICAL ECONOMY IN THE NINETEENTH CENTURY Ann Mari May, Ph.D. Associate Professor of Economics University of Nebraska-Lincoln Lincoln, NE 68588-0489 402 472-3369 [email protected] *Draft prepared for presentation at the Association for Heterodox Economics, London, England, July 2005. Please do not copy with consent of author. THE X-CLUB: SEX, BIOLOGY, AND POLITICAL ECONOMY IN THE NINETEENTH CENTURY ABSTRACT The last third of the nineteenth century has often been referred to as the era of popular science. In this period, men of science in England and in the United States lectured publicly on social issues with the authority of science. One of the most contested social issues was the “Woman Question.” The “Woman Question,” which began the century as a reference to women’s suitability for political suffrage and its attendant need for prudence or virtue, came increasingly to be associated with women’s suitability for the higher learning. As more women entered the higher learning in the last third of the nineteenth century and as they began to challenge their role in the higher learning moving from as consumers qua students to consumers qua faculty, arguments about women’s biological inferiority reemerged and with a new authority – science. This paper examines the role of science in the shaping perceived biological differences which, along with metaphors increasingly popular in political economy, were used to limit women’s participation in the higher learning. The articulation and dissemination of these arguments by “men of science” significantly influenced the character of women’s participation while preserving men’s privileged position in the higher learning.
    [Show full text]
  • “The Natural History of My Inward Self”: Sensing Character in George Eliot’S Impressions of Theophrastus Such S
    129.1 ] “The Natural History of My Inward Self”: Sensing Character in George Eliot’s Impressions of Theophrastus Such s. pearl brilmyer Attempts at description are stupid: who can all at once describe a human be- ing? Even when he is presented to us we only begin that knowledge of his ap- pearance which must be completed by innumerable impressions under differing circumstances. We recognize the alphabet; we are not sure of the language. —George Eliot, Daniel Deronda (160) ILL NOT A TINY spECK VERY CLOSE TO OUR VISION BLOT Out “ the glory of the world, and leave only a margin by Wwhich we see the blot?” asks the narrator of Middle- march (1874). Indeed it will, comes the answer, and in this regard there is “no speck so troublesome as self” (392). Metaphors of sen- sory failure in Eliot seem to capture the self- absorption of characters who discount empirical knowledge in favor of their own straitened worldviews. In Middlemarch Casaubon’s shortsightedness is tied to his egocentric attempts to “understand the higher inward life” (21). Dorothea, who marries Casaubon in an effort to attain this kind of understanding, is correspondingly “unable to see” the right con- clusion (29), can “never see what is quite plain” (34), “does not see things” (52), and is “no judge” of visual art, which is composed in “a language [she does] not understand” (73). When Eliot describes obstacles to sensation, however, she does more than provide a critique of egoism in which the corrective is sympathetic exchange. More basically, Eliot’s fascination with the S.
    [Show full text]
  • Signature in the Cell: DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design
    Signature in the Cell DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design Stephen C. Meyer 1 DNA, Darwin, and the Appearance of Design When James Watson and Francis Crick elucidated the structure of DNA in 1953, they solved one mystery, but created another. For almost a hundred years after the publication of On the Origin of Species by Charles Darwin in 1859, the science of biology rested secure in the knowledge that it had explained one of humankind’s most enduring enigmas. From ancient times, observers of living organisms had noted that living things display organized structures that give the appearance of having been deliberately arranged or designed for a purpose, for example, the elegant form and protective covering of the coiled nautilus, the interdependent parts of the eye, the interlocking bones, muscles, and feathers of a bird wing. For the most part, observers took these appearances of design as genuine. Observations of such structures led thinkers as diverse as Plato and Aristotle, Cicero and Maimonides, Boyle and Newton to conclude that behind the exquisite structures of the living world was a designing intelligence. As Newton wrote in his masterpiece The Opticks: “How came the Bodies of Animals to be contrived with so much Art, and for what ends were their several parts? Was the Eye contrived without Skill in Opticks, and the Ear without Knowledge of Sounds?…And these things being rightly dispatch’d, does it not appear from Phænomena that there is a Being incorporeal, living, intelligent…?”1 But with the advent of Darwin, modern science seemed able to explain this appearance of design as the product of a purely undirected process.
    [Show full text]