WHY EGALITARIANS SHOULD EMBRACE DARWINISM: A CRITICAL DEFENCE OF PETER SINGER’S A DARWINIAN LEFT. A thesis submitted in fulfilment of the requirements of the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Political Philosophy at the University of Canterbury by Patrick Michael Whittle University of Canterbury 2013 To Sue and Poppy, and in memory of Denis Dutton (d. 2010) and my little brother, David Whittle (d. St David’s Day, 2009). ii Table of Contents Abstract ........................................................................................................................ iv Acknowledgements ...................................................................................................... v Chapter 1: Introduction .............................................................................................. 1 Chapter 2: The Paradigm on Human Nature ......................................................... 13 Chapter 3: Swapping Marx for Darwin?................................................................. 25 Chapter 4: Deterministic & Reductionist. Not ........................................................ 41 Chapter 5: Ought and Is (and Can) .......................................................................... 59 Chapter 6: Infinite Malleability ................................................................................ 73 Chapter 7: The Psychic Unity of Humankind ......................................................... 89 Chapter 8: The Descent of Man and the Ascent of Woman ................................ 105 Chapter 9: Of Definitions and Diversity ................................................................ 121 Chapter 10: Researching ‘Race’ – Beyond the Pale? ........................................... 139 Chapter 11: A Pragmatic Approach to Genes & Environment .......................... 151 Chapter 12: Status For What?................................................................................ 161 Conclusion ............................................................ Error! Bookmark not defined.161 Notes to chapters ...................................................................................................... 179 References ................................................................................................................. 200 iii Abstract Despite most educated people now accepting Darwinian explanations for human physical evolution, many of these same people remain reluctant to accept similar accounts of human behavioural or cognitive evolution. Leftists in particular often assume that our evolutionary history now has little bearing on modern human social behaviour, and that cultural processes have taken over from the biological imperatives at work elsewhere in nature. The leftist view of human nature still largely reflects that of Karl Marx, who believed that our nature is moulded solely by prevailing social and cultural conditions, and that, moreover, our nature can be completely changed by totally changing society. Ethical philosopher Peter Singer challenges this leftist view, arguing that the left must replace its non-Darwinian view of an infinitely malleable human nature with the more accurate scientific account now made possible by modern Darwinian evolutionary science. Darwinism, Singer suggests, could then be used as a source of new ideas and new approaches that could revive and revitalise the egalitarian left. This thesis defends and develops Singer’s arguments for a Darwinian left. It shows that much modern leftist opposition to evolutionary theory is misguided, and that Darwinism does not necessarily have the egregious political implications so often assumed by the egalitarian left – even in such controversial areas as possible ‘biological’ differences between the sexes or between different human populations. iv Acknowledgements As well as an unexpected earthquake, I never imagined how my supervision arrangements would change as I wrote this thesis: one of my supervisors resigned on me, another retired, and yet another sadly died. Perhaps it says something about my work. Or about me. However, I was incredibly fortunate to eventually fall (pretty much literally) under the inspirational supervisory care of Dr Doug Campbell. He is an all round great bloke. v He who understands [a] baboon would do more towards metaphysics than Locke. Charles Darwin, Notebook M The philosophers have only interpreted the world in various ways – the point however is to change it. Karl Marx, Thesis on Feuerbach Foreword When I made a pilgrimage to Karl Marx’s tomb in Highgate Cemetery, London, the most human aspect that I noticed about his grandiose monument was the way in which the gravestones of lesser leftist revolutionaries appeared to jostle for position beneath their founding father’s imposing bust. It seemed as if the path of socialist glory had led but to this grave, and that, even in death, there was honour and acclaim to be gained through nearness to the left’s most dominant historical figure. If ever there is evidence of human beings’ inegalitarian desire for influence and status, it can perhaps be found in the grim irony of this commanding memorial to the champion of the proletariat. Those on the conservative right might use this to mock the very idea of creating a more egalitarian ‘socialist’ society. Human nature, they might argue, would not sustain a society in which each citizen was expected to give according to ability and to receive according to need. Human beings are just not like that. The very failure of Marxism when put into practice, they could say, clearly demonstrates that the left is mistaken in its beliefs about human malleability and, hence, about our ability to radically change the world. Given real human nature, it simply cannot be done. In ethical philosopher Peter Singer’s view, both sides are likely wrong: the left in its concept of an infinitely malleable human ‘species-being’, and the right in its belief that egalitarian social reform will always be stymied by constrained human nature. Singer lays out his argument in his slim manifesto, A Darwinian Left: Politics, evolution and cooperation. When I first read A Darwinian Left, I thought it contained a very simple and very useful message for the left: to realise our aspirations for how human society should be, we need to begin with an accurate understanding of what human beings actually are. Thus, the left must abandon its unrealistic Marxist concept of a malleable human nature in favour of the more realistic one provided by modern evolutionary science. Egalitarians could then use Darwinian reasoning to plan for a better and more equal future society, one that works with, rather than against, evolved human nature. What could be more straightforward than that? Having now completed a thesis on this ‘straightforward’ idea, I realise how naïve I had been. Not because I no longer think that Singer’s message is simple and useful; indeed, I believe more firmly than ever that a Darwinian perspective on human nature is essential to the left. Nor because I have concluded that evolutionary theory can tell us little that is politically relevant about modern human beings; in fact, I am increasingly aware of what evolutionary science (in the broadest sense) may reveal about the social and political behaviour of our fascinatingly complex and contradictory species. 1 Rather, I now appreciate how negatively many leftists, especially within the academic social sciences, continue to view ‘biological’ approaches to human behaviour. This has impacted on my thesis in ways that I had never initially envisaged. If the political manifesto presented in Singer’s A Darwinian Left is ever to gain traction, the left’s suspicions about Darwin must first be acknowledged and overcome – thus, much of the first half of my thesis is taken up assessing the left’s ongoing antipathy towards Darwinism. A problem with the whole nature/nurture debate, as I am now sadly aware, is that many of the protagonists on either side simply talk past each other. So, rather than accepting what evolutionists claim their opponents believe, I have focussed on what social scientists themselves actually say about Darwinism, most especially by examining the paradigm on human nature presented within introductory texts to the relevant disciplines. Having examined what many leftists fear must follow from a Darwinian view of human nature, I am able to argue that many of the standard leftist objections to Darwinism are premised on misunderstandings or misinterpretations of modern evolutionary theory. A major obstacle to the left even beginning to acknowledge the relevance of human evolution to modern social behaviour is how it inevitably appears to lead to suspect beliefs about human difference. Allaying these genuine and understandable fears, therefore, is a necessary task for any prospective Darwinian left. Two of the most problematic political issues that arise by taking human evolution seriously are the possibility of evolved differences between the sexes or between different racial populations. Any Darwinian approach to human social behaviour opens the door to these politically troubling issues, and while Singer largely ignores the question of sex and ‘race’ in A Darwinian Left, I have chosen not to shy away from this in my thesis. Here, I suggest that a Darwinian perspective on these subjects does not (or does not necessarily) carry the egregious political implications often assumed by the left, and, furthermore, that an evolutionary understanding of possible