From a book review in the conservative Weekly Standard:
ACCORDING TO CONVENTIONAL WISDOM, the continuing battles over the teaching of evolution in the public schools are episodes in the larger culture war between the secularist left and the religious right.
Larry Arnhart has news for both sides. He argues that “conservatives need Charles Darwin” to make their case that there is such a thing as “human nature” as against the left’s need to believe that “human nature” is only a social construction. Conservatism is suspicious of grand schemes of social transformation, since it recognizes that human nature cannot be radically altered. The left, on the other hand, needs to believe that human beings are infinitely malleable and thus ultimately perfectible to justify its quest for absolute equality.
As Arnhart puts it, “conservatives have a realist vision of human nature” while “those on the left have a utopian vision of human nature.” He argues, convincingly, that Darwinian science supports the realist vision rather than utopian hopes. Arnhart points out, for example, that the Darwinian narrative explains why it is human nature to “feel more attachment to those close to us . . . than we do to strangers who are far away.”
Darwin, properly understood, provides support for the conservative “realist vision” rather than for the leftist “utopian vision.” But neither Darwin’s putative allies nor his adversaries have been willing to limit the debate to anything as straightforward as the implications of evolutionary theory for an understanding of human nature.
This could be true! After all, it is the great conservative (I call it cynical) argument that violence is human nature. Well, we may be related most closely to the chimp, which can be a nasty bugger at times, but how many genes do we share with the bonobo, who fuck each other to resolve just about every social dispute?
Then there was this daring essay from my favorite contrarian, Howard Zinn. He basically takes on the premise of “violence in human nature,” turning it on its head. A bold argument, considering how much play the phrase “we are naturally violent” gets without much critical thought.
In “Violence and Human Nature,” I argue against the idea that violence and aggression are inborn, and insist they are determined by culture and indoctrination. I claim that it is possible for people to overcome that indoctrination and act with compassion toward fellow human beings. I now see that claim corroborated in the behavior of some of the families of those who died on September 11, 2001, in the fiery destruction of the Twin Towers in New York City. They reject the idea of retribution, believing we should not react to the terrorism of fanatical groups with the terrorism of war.
Well, I must be one of those utopian lefties, because I believe that whatever innate violence we may share with the chimp, we have already shown many examples of rising above our nature and choosing non-violent solutions to deeply contentious and emotional problems. One thing we as a species seem to do well is adapt, and if we create a social structure in which peaceful solutions are rewarded more than violent ones, we will, I believe, change to fit that new model, out of sheer self-interest.
One way to keep this experiment from even beginning would be to continue to violently punish people for non-violent crimes, which throws the whole experiment out of whack. But it is also not working at an executive level, because those in power are still acting as hammers, seeking nails to pound. The military industrial complex, the mono-culture of religion, etc. conspire to keep these waterheads convinced they are on some kind of divine mission… When in fact they may just be acting too much like chimps and not enough like bonobos. They wage war, it is disaster, they spin it and continue to wage war. People need to stand up and demand a different set of experiments.
I mean, look at George and Laura. Can you imagine sexual oral favors ever being exchanged between those two? They should visit the bonobos soon and take notes.
There you go. I’m one of those lefty utiopians after all. But because of evolution, not in spite of it.
I mean, look at George and Laura. Can you imagine sexual oral favories ever being exchanged between those two? They should visit the bonobos soon and take notes.
Thanks, I’m now going to have nightmares for weeks.
Well, I must be one of those utopian lefties, because I believe that whatever innate violence we may share with the chimp, we have already shown many examples of rising above our nature and choosing non-violent solutions to deeply contentious and emotional problems. One thing we as a species seem to do well is adapt, and if we create a social structure in which peaceful solutions are rewarded more than violent ones, we will, I believe, change to fit that new model, out of sheer self-interest.
RAmen
Will Says:
Thanks, I’m now going to have nightmares for weeks.
I second that.
“Conservatism is suspicious of grand schemes of social transformation, since it recognizes that human nature cannot be radically altered.”
So why the fuck are they pushing abstinence?
“So why the fuck are they pushing abstinence? ”
This is a great question to ask in light of recent events
This is one of those things that is so fucked up about conservatism. Conservatives from the Christian wing reject the true science of biological evolution but embrace the faux science of social Darwinism.
It was not always so. Once upon a time the primary objection of the Christians to Darwinism was the belief that it would inevitably lead to social Darwinism and that this would spread evil across the world. This somewhat misguided but at least worthy cause was one of the things that propelled the Scopes trial. The Christians, to be fair, were not entirely wrong. Social Darwinism wound itself into Nazi ideology and formed one root of the Final Solution.
I’ve always suspected that Georgie and Pickles sex life is centered less on her naughty bits and more on that hot glass eye and the socket in which it resides. I know it can be done. I read it in a Penthouse letter years ago and, c’mon, does anyone think W. is really packing behind that codpiece?
The conservative notion of a glass ceiling for human behavior, a peak of human nature/behavior applies to the less white, less “civilized”, less educated and not necessarily to themselves. They are, by Jeebus, by DNA, by geography, by gender, a higher form of the species. Of course, they’re also fucking nuts.
“c’mon, does anyone think W. is really packing behind that codpiece?”
A man secure in his manhood - its size and abilities - doesn’t start illegal wars just to show the world how big it is.