💾 Archived View for library.inu.red › file › anarcho-the-frustration-of-richard-dawkins.gmi captured on 2023-01-29 at 07:44:57. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
➡️ Next capture (2024-07-09)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Title: The frustration of Richard Dawkins Author: Anarcho Date: August 18, 2008 Language: en Topics: Richard Dawkins, Darwin, film review, biology Source: Retrieved on 28th January 2021 from https://anarchism.pageabode.com/?p=133 Notes: A review of Richard Dawkins documentary on Charles Darwin.
Richard Dawkins, Britain’s leading evolutionary theorists, has been
presenting an extremely interesting and informative series on Darwinism
(“The Genius of Charles Darwin”, Channel 4). It is a three part series
to commemorate the 150^(th) anniversary of discovery of natural
selection (next year marks the same anniversary of the publication of
“On Origin of Species”).
The first part was informative, although Dawkins did simply state, in
passing, how Darwin was influenced in developing his ideas by economics,
namely Malthus’s infamous essay on population. No mention of how that
essay, refuted in practice since it was written, became popular in
ruling class circles to counter attempts at social reform (it was
directly aimed at William Godwin). Given that Dawkins goes out of his
way in the second part to attack Social Darwinism, this oversight was
strange.
And it is this second part of the series which is so frustrating. In it
Dawkins tries to present the “dark” side of natural selection but also
to show how morality could have evolved. Yet, his account is full of
strange exclusions and underdeveloped ideas and concepts.
He starts by proclaiming that while, “as a scientist I’m thrilled by
natural selection, but as a human being I abhor it as a principle for
organising society.” This is understandable, as natural selection has
been used by the right to justify everything from laissez faire
capitalism to Nazism. Dawkins is at pains to say that he is against
attempts to use Darwin’s ideas to justify such ideas and policies. Yet,
the rationale for this can be seen from the very one-sided manner that
natural selection is portrayed. If the animal world is “dog eat dog” and
people are animals then the conclusion seems to logically follow that
organising human society in non-competitive ways is against “our”
nature. Dawkins turns to the capitalist economy, examining whether there
are parallels to be drawn between economic and biological systems. He,
rightly, notes that it is something of a stretch to apply evolutionary
ideas to capitalist economics and best not to.
Sadly, he does not discuss the obvious impact of capitalist economic
theory, and the laissez-faire economy of his day, on Darwin’s ideas and
how they were interpreted. Darwin’s ideas were not produced in an ivory
tower, unaffected by the society and dominant ideology of his times.
Russian critics of Darwin made precisely this point, acknowledging the
importance of natural selection but noting that Darwin and his followers
downplayed the importance of co-operation in nature due to cultural
influences. Kropotkin’s “Mutual Aid” came out of this critical
acceptance of Darwin’s work in Russian scientific circles (see “The
Scientific Background of Kropotkin’s Mutual Aid” by Daniel P. Todes in
The Raven (Vol. 6, No. 4)).
Nor does he point out the obvious contradiction. Natural selection is
about individuals yet modern industry is based on joint activity.
Rockefeller, one of the Social Darwinists Dawkins mentioned, did not
rise to his position by his own efforts but as a result of exploiting
the work of others. His position is, surely, based on the self-sacrifice
of others to enrich him? Similarly, unions are unmentioned in Dawkins
account – unlike Kropotkin, who pointed to them as examples of
co-operative behaviour in the hostile environment of capitalism.
But that is part of a wider blindness to class and its impact on
science. This can be seen when scientists proclaim themselves above
cultural influences while, at the same time, explaining nature in terms
of the assumptions and practice of capitalism. It can be seen when
Dawkins suggested that “poor laws” were an example of us rebelling
against our selfish genes. The welfare state would, perhaps, be a better
example given how the poor laws were an instrument of ruling class
repression (the Tudor Poor Laws, for example, were harsh towards the
able bodied poor who were not looking for work – whippings and beatings
were acceptable punishments). The workhouse does not suggest altruism.
That Malthus wanted the poor laws abolished did not make them a product
of altruism but rather a sign that their costs now outweighed their
benefits and so had become a burden to the capitalist class.
The conclusion cannot be avoided that underlying Dawkins account is a
perspective influenced, probably unknowingly, by the system he lives in
and so he sees ruthless competition between individuals (“nature red in
tooth and claw”) as being the core of natural selection. Yet, as
Kropotkin stressed, co-operative behaviour is a product of natural
selection. By co-operating, individuals of a species gain a benefit and
survive to reproduce and, moreover, such mutual aid lays the foundations
for altruism. Thus natural selection does not preclude co-operation,
altruism and ethics. Yet to “abhor” it with regards to humanity as
Dawkins does implies that such behaviour is not a product of natural
selection and is, somehow, unnatural.
In this Dawkins (Darwin’s Rottweiler) to similar to Thomas Huxley
(Darwin’s Bulldog). In the essay which provoked Kropotkin to write the
articles which would become “Mutual Aid”, Huxley argued that we could,
and should, organise society against the laws of nature. Which, in
itself raises an interesting paradox – how can we act in ways against
our nature? Can lions become vegetarian? That is the issue Kropotkin
addressed and which he proved, beyond reasonable doubt, that
co-operative behaviour is common-place in the natural world precisely
because it ensures survival and so civilisation was not against nature
as Huxley asserted.
Dawkins does discuss this, noting that selfish genes produce altruistic
individuals, but this aspect of his ideas does not seem fully integrated
with his other views. This can be seen from his repeated comments that
he has been struggling with the issues of selfishness and altruism,
competition and co-operation, for some time. Halfway through the
programme, he states that he considered morality as having evolved but
at the end, as with his book “The Selfish Gene”, Dawkins proclaims that
our big brains ensure that, unique amongst animals, we can rebel against
our selfish genes and organise society as we would like it to be.
Yet, ultimately, there is no paradox. Co-operation and displays of
sympathy, sensitivity, altruism and, in humans, ethics can be reconciled
with the idea of the survival of the fittest. Those who co-operate, as
Kropotkin stressed, are the fittest and so survive. This produces group
living and, consequently, the basis for sympathy and, ultimately,
altruism. Ethical behaviour is just as much part of our nature as
competition and ruthlessness – more so, as it is unlikely that we could
have survived and prospered if the latter rather than the former
predominated.
That is why Dawkins programme was so frustrating. On the one hand, he is
aware of how co-operation is natural and a product of natural selection.
On the other, he tends to paint a picture of nature as one of individual
competition and implies that most of humanity’s altruistic behaviour is
against natural selection (a product of our “misfiring selfish genes” as
he put it). If he had questioned some of the cultural assumptions he
seems to take for granted then the programme would have been improved
but, ultimately, Dawkins is a left-wing liberal, even a social democrat,
and not an anarchist so that this was not done is hardly surprising.