1 Communion and Dung Beetles

2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11 KEVIN SCOTT BALDWIN Let me state at the outset that I am an atheist. That said, I still think that one
12 of the things that drives our more spiritual tendencies is the desire to be a
13 part of something larger than ourselves. I am hard-pressed to do better than
14 John Steinbeck, who exclaimed in what is perhaps one of the most profoundly
15 consilient passages ever written:
16
17 And it is a strange thing that most of the feeling we call religious,
18 most of the mystical outcrying which is one of the most prized
19 and used and desired reactions of our species, is really the under-
20 standing and the attempt to say that man is related to the whole
21 thing, related inextricably to all reality, known and unknowable.
22 This is a simple thing to say, but the profound feeling of it made
23 a Jesus, a St. Augustine, a Roger Bacon, a Charles Darwin, and an
24 Einstein. Each of them in his own tempo and with his own voice
25 discovered and reaffirmed with astonishment the knowledge that
26 all things are one thing and that one thing is all things—plankton,
27 a shimmering phosphorescence on the sea and the spinning planets
28 and an expanding universe, all bound together by the elastic string
29 of time. It is advisable to look from the tide pool to the stars and
30 then back to the tide pool again.1
31
32 Steinbeck seems to have simultaneously anticipated and obliterated the culture
33 wars by stating we are all trying to do the same thing, whether it is through
34 science or spirituality. We should try to unify around this “whole thing” or at
35 least use it is a starting point for a dialog with mutual respect between atheists
36 and people of faith.
37 Our modern lifestyles and routines allow some of us to maintain the
38 fiction that we are not connected to our planet. Living in high rises, walking
39 on pavement, buying processed foods, and communicating in virtual worlds, it
40 is easy to downplay or even deny our connections to the rest of life on earth.
41 However, in addition to breathing, there are at least two times a day when
42 we should face this reality: When we eat and when we eliminate our waste.
43

94 religion

SP_TER2_11_094-097.indd 94 2/1/11 11:59 AM

 As we do not photosynthesize, we must obtain our energy In my family, when people of my grandparents’ gen- 1
and matter from plant or animal sources. When we urinate eration were present, we said grace at every meal. When 2
or defecate, our waste has the potential to become food people of my parents’ generation were the oldest present, 3
for other organisms. grace might be said only at special meals like Thanksgiv- 4
Production, consumption, and decomposition define ing dinner. When just my generation was present, grace 5
a cycle that goes back to the beginning of life on earth. was regarded as something quaint or old-fashioned and just 6
When that cycle is disrupted, chaos and opportunity can skipped. 7
result. As the oxygen waste from the first photosynthetic As I enter middle age I am beginning to question the 8
bacteria accumulated, it banished another group of bacteria, wisdom of that youthful dismissal, not because I am having 9
the Archaea, to hot, acid, alkali, or deep environments that a midlife conversion to Christianity, but because I now think 10
remained relatively oxygen free. It wasn’t all bad: Oxygen my grandparents were onto something by acknowledging 11
is necessary for the synthesis of collagen, a protein that their connection to something larger than themselves. For 12
makes large animals like ourselves possible. A lack of fun- them it was communion with the God of the Abrahamic 13
gal decomposers may have allowed dead plant material to tradition. For me, it is communion with the biogeochemi- 14
accumulate during the Carboniferous Period and bequeath cal processes that have led to and maintain life on earth. A 15
us with fossil fuels three hundred million years later. The secular grace should give recognition and thanks to these 16
problem with global warming is not so much that we are cycles and flows. So if we interpret the verses from Mat- 17
returning sequestered carbon to the cycle, but that the rate thew and Corinthians broadly, by eating, then, we are tak- 18
that we are doing so far outstrips nature’s ability to com- ing part in Steinbeck’s “whole thing.” By saying grace or 19
pensate for the changes that result. acknowledging where our food comes from, we recognize 20
Eating can be a spiritual act. The Eucharist is one and affirm this connection. 21
ritual that attempts to forge the connection between eating What about the other end of our “input-output” 22
and spirituality. Matthew and Corinthians have two slightly equation? For most non-hunter-gatherers, elimination of 23
different takes on this: waste is regarded with some uneasiness, which is reflected 24
in our numerous euphemisms for these activities: Take-a-crap, 25
And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and -dump, -shit, -piss; pinch-a-loaf, among others. These are 26
blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the dis- things to be done quickly, in private, and with as little fanfare 27
ciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body. (Mt as possible. The results are to be disposed of similarly, with 28
26:26) the expressions “flush-and-forget” and “out-of-sight, out-of- 29
mind,” being operative. Little in our culture encourages us 30
For we being many are one bread, and one to reflect on the fate of what we consume either as food 31
body: for we are all partakers of that one bread. or products. There are no apparent consequences when the 32
(1 Cor 10:17) life cycle is seemingly truncated at the toilet or the landfill. 33
In contrast to this angst and amnesia, some of the 34
The word Eucharist is derived from the Greek word most supremely spiritual moments I have ever experienced 35
for thanksgiving. Communion is another term that is involved defecating in the woods of north Florida (which I 36
applied to this practice and derived from the Latin com- did numerous times during field work for my dissertation). 37
munio or sharing in common. The act of eating is regarded I can honestly say that I looked forward to pooping in the 38
as something special that signifies a belief in connection. It woods on those days because I could count on dung beetles 39
is not for nothing that we prize companions, literally, those making an appearance. They were up in the canopy waiting 40
we break bread with. As shared experiences, giving thanks for a new pile of dung in which to roll and lay their eggs, 41
and eating acquire additional meaning. and I was on many occasions unable to pull my pants up 42
43

kevin scott baldwin 95

SP_TER2_11_094-097.indd 95 2/1/11 11:59 AM

 1 before a pair of beetles would descend and circle around me
2 and my recently deposited waste. As they spiraled in, their
3 wing beats got louder and shifted in and out of phase in
4 such a way that I thought my head would explode. More
5 often than not, they would fly right into my dung (with
6 an audible splat) and immediately begin rolling and bury-
7 ing what they could. If beetles feel joy, I am sure that is
8 what they were experiencing. Within a few hours, the dung
9 would be buried only to be recycled later in the form of
10 beetle grubs and vegetation. From the beetle’s perspective,
11 “pinching a loaf ” is not so much an expression as a reality:
12 Our shit is their bread.
13 So, why was this spiritual? I felt extremely connected
14 to the world by having something I regarded as waste being
15 something precious and essential for reproduction by anoth-
16 er species. Instead of defecating in solitude behind closed
17 doors and flushing the evidence, I was instead communing
18 with other life-forms and thus taking part in Steinbeck’s
19 “whole thing” and Corinthians’ “one bread.”
20 The second time I had a dung beetle experience, I
21 marveled at how quickly they detected and located their
22 prize: They almost seemed omniscient and omnipresent.
23 As it turns out, as with so much of biology, form and
24 function are inextricably bound. Scarabeid beetles all have
25 large antennae that survey the olfactory realm, opening like
26 fans or spread fingers searching out molecular shapes that
27 encode their world. They are exquisitely sensitive to what-
28 ever resource the beetle requires. Figure 1. Ancient Egyptian scarab.
29 Of course, I am not the first person to ascribe such
30 importance to dung beetles. Scarabs were regarded as sacred
31 by the ancient Egyptians who used them to express ideas
32 of transformation and rebirth. (Some believe that mummies ogy. Atlas was later appropriated by Ayn Rand to represent
33 were consciously crafted by the Egyptians to resemble beetle the creative class: Titans of industry and finance. Which is
34 larvae that could come back to life as they metamorphosed a more accurate representation of the way the world really
35 into adults!) Their dung balls, which were buried at the end turns? During the great global economic meltdown of 2008,
36 of the day, were likened to the setting sun. Atlas not only shrugged but gave everybody else the fin-
37 Beetles rolling dung balls might have inspired the ger while pocketing the profits and socializing the risks of
38 vision in Ezekiel 1:1–28 of wheels being turned by bronze/ questionable financial activities. Ecosystem services in the
39 beryl-colored, four-winged, cloven-footed cherubim whose form of nutrient cycling by dung beetles and countless other
40 sound in flight was like the voice of God. activities by organisms and emergent systems have in the
41 In some folklore, dung beetles make the earth revolve meantime held fairly steady. Which has the longer record of
42 much as a more anthropomorphic Atlas did in Greek mythol- positive return, Goldman Sachs or the golden scarab?
43

96 religion

SP_TER2_11_094-097.indd 96 2/1/11 11:59 AM

 One of the best history lessons I ever received was another planet may be able to glean our existence from 1
from a friend of my dad’s who had grown up in Weimar those trash deposits, the corresponding spike in atmospheric 2
Germany and just managed to escape the Holocaust by carbon dioxide levels, and mass extinctions, long after any 3
emigrating to the United States. I was in sixth or seventh other traces of our civilization have vanished. Dung beetles 4
grade at the time and asked him, with all the innocence offer a path of great opportunity and perhaps even salvation 5
and indignation that coexist at that age, how could the by emphasizing the value and importance of closing that 6
German people have supported Hitler? He responded by cycle in all that we do. 7
showing me a one Mark note that had been overstamped Food and feces are not simply things to be consumed 8
with a 1000 M symbol, and then overstamped again with a and be disposed of, they define fundamental relationships to 9
1,000,000 M symbol. Realizing that a life’s savings or even the rest of the planet. Our bodies are a pathway that links 10
a great fortune could be wiped out so easily (and this could photosynthetic production to decomposition. In addition 11
in turn lead to something like Nazism), was probably one to being an atheist, I am also an anatomist. As such I can 12
of the events that led me to seek and find in evolutionary state with confidence that our mouths and anuses are con- 13
biology and ecology, more authentic and durable measures nected by our digestive tract. They also profoundly connect 14
of value than money. I imagine this same urge also turns us to our world. 15
to people to seminary. 16
Over the last 150 years we as a species have excelled BIBLIOGRAPHY 17
at production and consumption, but have epically (and 18
epochally!) failed on the last parts of the cycle of life: Steinbeck, John. The Log from the Sea of Cortez. New York: Pen- 19
decomposition and recycling. Conspicuous consumption guin, 1995. 20
and planned obsolescence have resulted in big piles of 21
stuff in landfills and huge volumes of carbon dioxide in NOTE 22
the atmosphere that have generated big piles of volatile 23
money for Wall Street. Paleontologists of the future or from 1. Steinbeck, Log, 178–79. 24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43

kevin scott baldwin 97

SP_TER2_11_094-097.indd 97 2/1/11 11:59 AM

 pop culture
pop culture

1
2
3
4
5
6 The Great Porn Experiment
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
MARNIA ROBINSON To the extent that present day conditions are different from ancestral
16
conditions, the ancestral genetic advice will be wrong.
17
18 —Richard Dawkins
19
20
21 The collision of widespread internet porn use with man’s ancient mamma-
22 lian brain constitutes one of the fastest-moving, most global experiments ever
23 unconsciously conducted. Consider the following:
24
25 In 2009, the Canadian sociologist Simon Louis Lajeunesse had to
26 revise his proposed study to examine the effects of today’s porn
27 videos. He couldn’t find any “porn virgins” to serve as a control
28 group among the male students at a major university.
29 Of nearly 100 porn users who competed to give up porn for
30 two weeks, seventy percent could not. Contest volunteers reported
31 uncomfortable withdrawal symptoms, not unlike substance abusers.
32 In 2010, a US Government report revealed that Securities
33 and Exchange Commission officials were viewing porn for hours
34 a day while on the job.
35 Up to sixty percent of college-age males find aspects of their
36 porn viewing problematic according to a 2009 survey.1
37
38 With porn, as with drugs and alcohol, “too much” varies from user to user.
39 Nonetheless, adopting an evolutionary perspective, we can safely say that the
40 human brain is especially vulnerable to the extraordinary stimulation of today’s
41 porn—with unanticipated and escalating consequences. As the psychiatrist Nor-
42 man Doidge observes, “pornographers promise healthy pleasure and relief from
43

98 pop culture

SP_TER2_12_098-105.indd 98 2/1/11 12:00 PM

 sexual tension, but what they often deliver is addiction, not register fulfillment. This is why many of us can’t easily 1
tolerance, and an eventual decrease in pleasure.”2 Since free say, “no.” Neither sex nor food is inherently maladaptive. 2
porn videos became widely available at high speed some five What might well be maladaptive is the combination of our 3
years ago, heavy porn users increasingly report that they can intrinsic wiring and today’s super-enticements. 4
no longer become aroused by real mates. Some also suffer 5
from an early onset of erectile dysfunction. SELFISH GENES, INFIDELTIY, AND PAIR BONDING 6
Humanity’s Great Porn Experiment acquires unsus- 7
pecting, eager subjects whenever new computers go online. Once we adopt an evolutionary perspective, the appeal 8
Unfortunately, our society is currently dithering in debates of internet porn is no mystery. The chance to fertilize a 9
about free speech, unacceptable content, sexual repression, novel partner is a genetic bonanza that natural selection 10
and harm to third parties. Meanwhile, one of porn’s most does much to encourage. Producing offspring with different 11
sinister risks is overlooked: its power to hijack the brain. To mates means that genes flow through diverse immune sys- 12
understand it better, we have to think about how evolution tems, offering wider resistance and improved odds of genetic 13
has shaped our appetites. immortality. Wandering genitals are so valuable to reproduc- 14
Mating and eating are the two primary drives for tive success that there are in fact no truly monogamous 15
which our brain evolved its appetitive go-get-it circuitry. mammal species. Ninety-seven percent of them conduct 16
These drives seem innocuous because they’re second nature. their love lives according to a simple formula: “Mate to 17
If you were having intrusive thoughts about alcohol, you’d satiety, and lose interest for some time . . . unless a novel 18
suspect you had a problem, but you would probably think mate shuffles into view, in which case, zing!” This “Coolidge 19
nothing of intrusive thoughts about sex. Enthusiasm for effect” is part of the common knowledge among evolution- 20
sexual stimuli is a genetic program, not unlike a yen for ists. They are perhaps less commonly aware that the effect 21
mother’s milk. It’s nearly universal. In contrast, many people has been observed in females, too.5 22
find drugs, nicotine, and alcohol aversive. This difference In 3 percent of mammal species, humans included, the 23
might well explain why porn users often report being program favoring a variety of sexual partners coexists with a 24
hooked on porn without having previous compulsions.3 powerful urge to form pair bonds—at least for a time. This 25
Our brains evolved to push us toward sex and food, not class of mammals is socially monogamous, but DNA tests 26
toward addictive drugs, and, “never before, in the history show that all pair bonders still exchange genes on the side. 27
of pornography, has so much been so cheaply available to Humans form pair bonds because it furthered the survival 28
so many.”4 of human offspring. While the offspring of other primates 29
We all know how potent today’s extraordinarily entic- can at least cling to their mother at birth, a human baby 30
ing junk food is: 64 percent of Americans are overweight, can’t even hold up her head. She has such a large skull 31
and half of those obese. Why would highly stimulating porn that she has to be born, in effect, prematurely. She requires 32
be less compelling or risky? Sex is why we’re here—at least years, and a lot of provender, to develop into a competent 33
from the perspective of our genes. Desire can override our adult. In contrast, most mammals need only the mother’s 34
intellect and urge us to make babies, even at great personal mammary glands for a time to make it to adulthood. For 35
risk. In fact, mammalian brains may generally be wired to humans, having our parents fall in love—at least for long 36
binge on especially alluring food and sex—to get as much enough to fall in love with us—isn’t a luxury. 37
as possible while the getting is good. Highly valued stimuli The interplay between these two evolutionary pro- 38
feel like they will satisfy more, but they can trigger lin- grams—the appeal of a bonded mate versus the intoxication 39
gering dissatisfaction, which drives us beyond our normal of novel genes—creates an uneasy tension. Whatever col- 40
limits—and, sometimes, beyond common sense. Our brain lateral domestic damage this tension might have produced, 41
reduces our sensitivity to pleasure, and as a result it does it has evidently served our genes well. We are, after all, a 42
43

marnia robinson 99

SP_TER2_12_098-105.indd 99 2/1/11 12:00 PM

 1 remarkably prolific species. Now, however, porn might be
2 rapidly tipping this delicate balance in a new direction. Ear-
3 lier this year, for example, musician John Mayer confessed
4 that he now prefers hours of porn to relationships with real
5 women.6 While preparing this article, I exchanged electronic
6 messages with a number of people who offered testimony
7 about the experience of porn use. As one such interviewee
8 explained, “Porn was easy excitement. I didn’t interact with
9 others because it took too much work, I had to think too
10 hard, and interaction was ‘boring.’ I was numb and my senses
11 were dulled. And I feared they would continue to be that
12 way even after I quit.” Months after quitting porn, he added,
13 “I’m dating a woman again, and I’m more attracted to her
14 real body than I ever was to porn girls. I never imagined
15 this would happen, and it is so exciting. The colors are
16 back in my life!”
17
18 PORN, CRACK, AND KRISPY KREMES
19
20 No doubt the evolutionary programming that primes us to
21 exploit opportunities to have sex with novel partners, or
22 binge on sweet or high-fat foods, once worked well enough.
23 After all, calories could be converted to a bit of extra fat
24 for easy storage and transport, and willing strangers were
25 probably not all that plentiful. In short, sparse environments
26 and scanty populations limited our opportunities for over-
27 indulgence. Today, however, we’re inundated with synthetic,
28 super-potent temptation. Junk food is carefully crafted to
29 goose our primal hankering for fat and sugar. In a single
30 session, porn users can attempt to fertilize more (virtual)
31 novel mates than most of their ancestors laid eyes on in a
32 lifetime. Such supranormal stimulation sets the brain abuzz
33 with a loud, now erroneous, message: “This activity is really
34 valuable because it’s causing a mammoth release of exciting
35 neurochemicals. Focus your future attention on everything
36 connected with it. Do it as often as possible!” To ensure we
37 keep doing it, our brains temporarily numb our pleasure
38 response. Normal tastes and normal feelings of satisfaction
39 don’t return for weeks after we stop.7 Meanwhile, we’re
40 looking around eagerly for something to “hit the spot.”
41 The source of these commands is our primitive reward
42 circuitry, most of which lies just behind the nose in the
43
limbic system. Our reward circuitry gives rise to our gut
feelings, our drives, our urges to gobble sweets, drink when
thirsty, and have sex. It plays critical roles in our moods,
judgments, and choices between competing priorities. It’s a
vital part of our emotional attachment mechanism. It bonds
us to our offspring, and it causes us to fall in—and out—of
love. Finally, it is the epicenter of every addiction.
Throughout the course of evolution, the limbic sys-
tem has executed its tasks with such blinding efficiency that
it hasn’t changed very much in over one hundred million
years. The same neurochemicals and nerve cell receptors
still perform roughly the same functions in all mammals.
And indeed, the limbic system has been called the mam-
malian brain. We tend to rely on our reward circuitry, our
inner compass, without thinking about its commands very
much. When we’re under stress and parts of it are bleeping
especially loud, anxious signals, we trust it to steer us to
relief. Of course, our brain’s more recently evolved frontal
cortex can trump such impulses. That’s how we exercise
willpower or discernment. Yet there are times when it takes
so much effort to resist these subconscious commands that
it’s normal to rationalize giving in. “Everyone else is doing
it!” “I need something to take the edge off.” Alas, when users
attempt to withdraw from heavy porn/masturbation, many
suffer debilitating distress for weeks. It’s easy to dive back
in—and get caught in an escalating porn loop as the ever-
more-numbed brain seeks greater stimulation to medicate
the pain of withdrawal. Jay Phelan is a professor of biology at
UCLA and coauthor of Mean Genes.8 When I interviewed
him, he made this point:
All excessive stimulations of the reward circuitry
of the brain that are not tied to the behaviors
for which the circuitry originally evolved are
problematic. While this has become appreciated
for drug addiction such as cocaine (and for
issues relating to food), it is not yet appreci-
ated for porn.
We need to understand who we are as a
species and why we have self-control problems.
Internet porn is another manifestation of “mis-
match,” the phenomenon of our modern world

100 pop culture

SP_TER2_12_098-105.indd 100 2/1/11 12:00 PM

 deviating from the world to which we became anti-anxiety neurochemicals, which help to keep our brains 1
adapted over evolutionary time. in balance, our perception clear, and our judgment sound. 2
3
In short, a potent “Focus on this!” command in response I have so much more energy, I’m less moody, 4
to supernormal stimulation doesn’t reliably indicate that the I have more enthusiasm and motivation for 5
activity or substance is actually worthy of our exaggerated work, I don’t feel drained all the time, and I 6
attention—and our consequent inattention to other goals feel a deeper sense of connection with every- 7
or people in our life. thing around me. But the biggest change it has 8
made is in my relationship. My girlfriend and I 9
I’m twenty-five years old and I’ve been using feel much closer to each other already. —Rob 10
porn for fourteen years. There was a period of 11
two years though where I couldn’t look at it As Doidge observes, “The addictiveness of Internet pornog- 12
because I was on a government facility where raphy is not a metaphor” (Brain, 106). Today’s porn users are 13
pornographic sites were banned. During those seduced into training sessions that meet all the conditions 14
years I was at my peak of creativity: writing required for plastic change of the brain: rapt attention, rein- 15
poetry, songs, and stories. I also talked to every- forcement (sexual arousal), and creation and strengthening 16
one, not shying away from a soul. When I got of new neural connections. These changes narrow future 17
home I went back to spending the day look- attention. Other brain changes numb users to life’s subtler 18
ing at the nakedness of the Internet. Two years pleasures, such as the charms of normal partners, soothing 19
later, I’ve become an introvert, secluding myself affection, and friendly interaction. 20
away, and I’m shy and depressed most of the 21
time. —Jason ADDITION AND TOLERANCE 22
23
The brain’s reward circuitry can only weigh priorities If today’s porn tastes were purely the product of millions 24
according to which give off the loudest neurochemical sig- of years of evolution, they would be similar, and wouldn’t 25
nals. In a brain that is temporarily numbed to pleasure, a shift with time. Instead, as Doidge notes, “Hardcore pornog- 26
hot video easily trumps companionship, flirting, kids, and raphy now explores the world of perversion, while softcore 27
jobs: is now what hardcore was a few decades ago. . . . When 28
pornographers boast that they are pushing the envelope by 29
Unnaturally strong explosions of synthetic expe- introducing new, harder themes, what they don’t say is that 30
rience and sensation and pleasure evoke unnatu- they must, because their customers are building up a toler- 31
rally strong degrees of habituation. . . . Soon we ance to the content” (Brain, 102). Ironically, porn does not 32
hardly notice anymore the fleeting whispers of even ease sexual frustration, except in the very short-term, 33
pleasure caused by leaves in autumn, or by the sometimes. Extreme stimulation interferes with feelings of 34
lingering glance of the right person, or by the satisfaction. As a consequence, finding “the hottest” porn 35
promise of reward that will come after a long, video to produce the strongest climax leads to less satisfac- 36
difficult, and worthy task.9 tion soon afterward, not more. It’s not uncommon for users 37
to binge because they cannot scratch their itch. Yet most 38
Hot videos offer false-positive results brought about by a don’t even question what’s going on until they suffer from 39
surge of dopamine. Humans are better served by secur- erectile dysfunction or find themselves watching things their 40
ing close, trusted companionship and lots of affectionate limbic brains find shocking/stimulating and their rational 41
touch. Both trigger the release of natural antidepressant, brains find revolting—just to climax. At the same time, they 42
43

marnia robinson 101

SP_TER2_12_098-105.indd 101 2/1/11 12:00 PM

 1 are hypersensitive to anything their brains associate with
2 “relief,” and this vulnerability remains after recovery.
3 tion. Warm touch between married couples reduces various
4 I’ve noticed that when I do succeed in avoid-
5 ing porn for a week or two, I don’t have any
6 problems with erections. Whereas if I look at
7 porn, I can’t get it up without it. Trouble is,
8 each time I get better I believe I’m cured, and
9 go back to daily porn/masturbation. I wish I
10 could stay away from it permanently. —Damon
11
12 It is not unusual for some users caught in the porn loop to
13 feel intense social anxiety, depression, despair, apathy, and so
14 forth. Until they completely reboot their brains, life seems
15 meaningless—but for the single-minded pursuit of hotter
16 stimuli. The lengthy withdrawal (often months) required to
17 restore their brains to equilibrium is sometimes so unbear-
18 able (shakes, insomnia, despair, cravings, severe headaches,
19 relapses, irritability) that many feel they have no choice but
20 to keep using. They don’t realize there is light at the end
21 of the tunnel because it is so long and dark.
22
23 For years my erections got weaker and weaker,
24 despite using more and more stimulating porn.
25 Well—for those out there who may not have
26 tried stopping porn—I have no erection strength
27 problems anymore [after several months of hell-
28 ish withdrawal]. I think tonight’s is the strongest
29 erection I have had in years. Having all these
30 erections is like being a teen again. As bad as
31 the cravings are right now, I am happy about
32 the renewed strength of my body. —Cory
33
34 PORN’S IMPACT ON HUMAN ATTACHMENT
35
36 Like it or not, humans are tribal, pair-bonding primates.
37 We’re wired to thrive on close, trusted companionship and
38 warm affection (as well as exercise, accomplishment, and so
39 forth). Companionship releases healthy levels of dopamine
40 and other “feel good” neurochemicals, such as oxytocin,
41 which help balance us. The gains from connection show
42 up in very real terms. For example, HIV patients with a
43
partner live longer and develop AIDS less rapidly. Wounds
heal twice as fast with companionship as compared to isola-
measures of stress. Yet the most profound gifts of close con-
nection may be psychological. Close emotional connections
are associated with lower rates of addiction and depression.10
They change the neural patterns and brain chemistry of
those who engage in them, bolstering their sense of self
and making empathy and socialization possible.
It is getting easier to resist. Porn doesn’t have
the power it once had over me, nor is it drain-
ing my self worth, nor am I a lust ball all day.
I can do other things, like socialize. I feel other
things. —Ian
Humans cannot regulate their moods on their own, at
least not for long. Prisoners in solitary confinement often
go insane. In other words, it’s normal to feel anxious or
depressed when isolated. As Philip J. Flores reminds us in
Addiction as an Attachment Disorder, “Attachment is not just
a good idea; it’s the law.”11 It’s also some of the best health
insurance the planet offers.
The stereotypical porn addict used to be a person
who, for whatever reason, couldn’t form healthy relationships.
Now, well-adjusted men are succumbing to the crack-like
appeal of today’s extreme videos. Some are also isolating,
seeking medication for unaccustomed depression and anxi-
ety, and experiencing social anxiety.
This porn addiction, all of it, the withdrawals,
the weird emotional stuff, is losing its power.
I’m unclogging a drain. I’m pulling out one
hair, but it’s pulling everything connected with
it out as well. I wish I had known this one hair
was the culprit behind all my mental maladies
years ago! —Kyle
Frequent affection is normally very soothing and rewarding
for a pair-bonded species—with or without sex. But when
we’re not able to feel subtle pleasures due to blunted brain
sensitivity, affection seems pointless. Instead of tenderness,
we may want “space” and extreme stimuli. Mere exposure

102 pop culture

SP_TER2_12_098-105.indd 102 2/1/11 12:00 PM

 to images of foxy females can cause a man to devalue his at key points of our childhood, as Freud postulated, but 1
real-life partner. In one study, males rated a partner lower throughout our lives. For example, connection helps reduce 2
not only on attractiveness, but were also less in love with cortisol, which can otherwise weaken our immune system 3
her. Another study showed that exposure to even nonvio- under stress. “It’s much less wear and tear on us if we have 4
lent porn makes men and women more likely to believe someone there to help regulate us,” explains psychologist/ 5
that women like submission during sex, and causes them neuroscientist James A. Coan.14 6
to devalue marital fidelity.12 7
THE GREAT PORN EXPERIMENT AND 8
My boyfriend says he’s unable to perform sexu- HUMAN EVOLUTION 9
ally due to his porn use. I love him so much 10
but feel absolutely devastated that he felt he Our cultural mind-set is that orgasm and masturbation 11
had to turn to porn. I always thought we had are such tonics that porn is practically a health-aid.15 Yet 12
such a great sex life. I am twenty-six years old porn can only produce orgasms; it can’t meet our evolved 13
and consider myself to be quite attractive, but needs for human connection. If today’s computer literate 14
I now feel like shit. I have no confidence or men weren’t using so much porn, it seems likely that they 15
self-esteem left. —Mia would have less depression and anxiety, greater willingness 16
to approach real mates, more charisma. 17
“With science-fiction strangeness, porn [is] competing with
18
real-life partners, and [is] even emerging as the most impor-
I feel again. I feel emotions again. My interest 19
tant object of some clients’ sexual desires,” writes sex therapist
in women is heightened, my confidence is up 20
Wendy Maltz. In short, compulsive porn use can be both a
and gives me motivation again. I’m twenty-eight 21
substitute and an obstacle for interpersonal relationships.13
now, and until the last couple of years I felt I 22
Until a person relinquishes all addictions, including sex
had the maturity of a fifteen-year-old. But as 23
addictions, he cannot tap the “only source of healthy affect
I heal and recover from this addiction, I’ve felt 24
regulation that is available to [him]: healthy interpersonal
emotions I’ve never had to deal with before. It 25
attachment” (Attachment, 11). When recovering users force
has helped me grow up. —Adrian 26
their attention away from their habitual “relief,” their reward
27
circuitry looks around for other sources of pleasure. Eventu-
It’s unfortunate that research can seldom furnish an accu- 28
ally it finds those it evolved to find: friendly interaction, real
rate picture of a rapid trend. For example, experts once 29
mates, time in nature, exercise, accomplishment, and so forth.
assured us that marriage contentment improved in later 30
After a few days I noticed increased energy, years. Finally, a team reexamined the data and realized that 31
increased attention, and higher self-esteem. After the improvement was an illusion.16 In fact, people in earlier 32
a month—although it took several tries to get generations were actually happier throughout their marriages. 33
there—those improvements were all through the They had different expectations about marriage, and per- 34
roof. A couple of months later, I was having real haps significantly, less exposure to the growing snowball of 35
sex. It is nice to get aroused by little things, like increasingly compelling synthetic sexual stimuli. 36
a revealing blouse or just a woman’s flowing, Will the link between super-stimulating internet porn, 37
shiny hair and fragrance. —Nick numbed brains, and side effects like “copulatory impotence” 38
finally motivate frequent porn users to go through the dis- 39
Under normal circumstances, we humans are driven more comfort of returning their brains to normal sensitivity?17 40
by a need for attachment than by other sources of plea- Or will future generations conclude that The Great Porn 41
sure (Attachment, xi). We need this interdependence, not just Experiment radically altered the course of human evolution? 42
43

marnia robinson 103

SP_TER2_12_098-105.indd 103 2/1/11 12:00 PM

 1 BIBLIOGRAPHY Lester, G. L., and B. B. Gorzalka. “Effect of Novel and Familiar
2 Mating Partners on the Duration of Sexual Receptivity
3 Bridges, A. J. “Pornography’s Effects on Interpersonal in the Female Hamster.” Behavioral and Neural Biology 49
Relationships.” http://www.winst.org/family_marriage_ (1988): 398–405.
4
and_democracy/social_costs_of_pornography/Bridges%20 Lewis, Thomas, Fari Amini, and Richard Lannon. A General Theory
5
-%20Pornography%27s%20Effects%20on%20Interperson- of Love. New York: Vintage, 2001.
6 al%20Relationships.pdf. Maltz, Wendy. “Is Porn Bad for You?” AlterNet, May 23, 2010,
7 Burnham, Terry, and Jay Phelan. Mean Genes: From Sex to Money http://www.alternet.org/sex/146957/is_porn_bad_for_
8 to Food: Taming Our Primal Instincts. New York: Penguin you?page=entire.
9 Putnam, 2000. Manning, J. C. “The Impact of Internet Pornography on Marriage
10 Detilliona, C. E., Tara K. S. Craft, Erica R. Glasper, Brian J. Pren- and the Family: A Review of the Research. Sexual Addic-
11 dergast, and A. Courtney DeVries. “Social Facilitation tion and Compulsivity 13 (2006): 131–65.
12 of Wound Healing.” Psychoneuroendocrinology 29 (2004): Mayer, John. “Playboy Interview: John Mayer.” Playboy, March 2010,
13 1004–11. http://www.playboy.com/articles/john-mayer-playboy-
14 Doidge, Norman. The Brain That Changes Itself. New York: Penguin interview/index.html.
Group, 2007. Parker-Pope, Tara. “Is Marriage Good for Your Health?” New York
15
Fidelman, Charlie. “Study Spoiled by Scarcity of ‘Porn Virgins.’ ” Times, April 12, 2010, http://www.nytimes.com/2010/
16
Montreal Gazette, December 7, 2009, http://www.van- 04/18/magazine/18marriage-t.html.
17 couversun.com/life/Study+spoiled+scarcity+porn+virgi Robinson, Marnia. Cupid’s Poisoned Arrow: From Habit to Har-
18 ns/2298048/story.html. mony in Sexual Relationships. Berkeley: North Atlantic
19 Flores, Philip J. Addiction as an Attachment Disorder. Lanham, MD: Books, 2009.
20 Jason Aronson, 2004. Ross, Catherine E. “Reconceptualizing Marital Status as a Con-
21 Heinrichs, M., T. Baumgartner, C. Kirschbaum, and U. Ehlert. tinuum of Social Attachment.” Journal of Marriage and the
22 “Social Support and Oxytocin Interact to Suppress Cor- Family 57 (1995): 129–40.
23 tisol and Subjective Responses to Psychosocial Stress.” Sapolsky, Robert M. Why Zebras Don’t Get Ulcers. 4th ed. New
24 Biological Psychiatry 54 (2003): 1389–98. York: Henry Holt, 2004.
25 Holt-Lunstad, J., W. A. Birmingham, and K. C. Light. “Influence Twohig, Michael P., Jesse M. Crosby, and Jared M. Cox. “Viewing
of a ‘Warm Touch’ Support Enhancement Intervention Internet Pornography: For Whom Is It Problematic, How,
26
Among Married Couples on Ambulatory Blood Pressure, and Why?” Sexual Addiction and Compulsivity 16 (2009):
27
Oxytocin, Alpha Amylase, and Cortisol.” Psychosomatic 253–66.
28 Medicine 70 (2008): 976–85. Van Laningham, Jody, David R. Johnson, and Paul R. Amato.
29 Johnson, Paul M., and Paul J. Kenny. “Dopamine D2 Receptors “Marital Happiness, Marital Duration, and the U-Shaped
30 in Addiction-Like Reward Dysfunction and Compulsive Curve: Evidence from a Five-Wave Panel Study.” Social
31 Eating in Obese Rats.” Nature Neuroscience 13 (2010): Forces 79 (2001): 1313–41.
32 635–41. http://www.nature.com/neuro/journal/v13/n5/ White, Helene Raskin, Allan V. Horwitz, and Sandra Howell-
33 pdf/nn.2519.pdf. White. “Becoming Married and Mental Health: A Lon-
34 Kalman, Thomas P. “Clinical Encounters with Internet Pornogra- gitudinal Study of a Cohort of Young Adults.” Journal of
35 phy.” Journal of the American Academy of Psychoanalysis and Marriage and the Family 58 (1996): 895–907.
36 Dynamic Psychiatry 36 (2008): 593–618. Wong, David. “The 10 Steps to Porn Addiction: Where Are You?”
Karl, Jonathan. “SEC Porn Problem: Officials Surfing Sites Dur- Cracked.com, http://www.cracked.com/article_15725_10-
37
ing Financial Crisis, Report Finds.” ABC: Good Morning steps-porn-addiction-where-are-you.html.
38
America, April 23, 2010, http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/ Young, Jim, Sabina De Geest, Rebecca Spirig, Markus Flepp, Mar-
39 sec-pornography-employees-spent-hours-surfing-porn- tin Rickenbach, Hansjakob Furrer, Enos Bernasconi, Ber-
40 sites/story?id=10452544. nard Hirschel, et al. “Stable Partnership and Progression
41 Kenrick, D. T., S. E. Gutierres, and L. L. Goldberg. “Influence of to AIDS or Death in HIV Infected Patients Receiving
42 Popular Erotica on Judgments of Strangers and Mates.” Highly Active Antiretroviral Therapy: Swiss HIV Cohort
43 Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 25 (1989): 159–67. Study.” BMJ 328 (2004): 15.

104 pop culture

SP_TER2_12_098-105.indd 104 2/1/11 12:00 PM

 Zillman, D., and J. Bryant. “Effects of Prolonged Consumption of 8. Burnham and Phelan, Mean Genes. 1
Pornography on Family Values.” Journal of Family Issues 9 9. Sapolsky, Zebras, 133. 2
(1988): 518–44. 10. Young et al., “Stable Partnership”; Detilliona et al., “Social 3
Facilitation”; Holt-Lunstad, Birmingham, and Light, “ ‘Warm 4
FILMOGRAPHY Touch’ ”; White, Horwitz, and Howell-White, “Becoming Mar-
5
ried”; Ross, “Marital Status.”
Adult Entertainment: Disrobing an American Idol. Director Lance 6
11. Flores, Addiction as an Attachment Disorder, hereafter cited
Tracy, 2007. http://www.1726entertainment.com/. as Attachment. Flores is citing Lewis, Amini, and Lannon, General 7
Theory of Love. 8
NOTES 9
12. Kenrick, Gutierres, and Goldberg, “Influence of Popular
1. Fidelman, “Study Spoiled”; Wong, “Porn Addiction”; Karl, Erotica”; Zillman and Bryant, “Prolonged Consumption.” Also see 10
“SEC Porn Problem”; Twohig, Crosby, and Cox, “Internet Por- the documentary film Adult Entertainment. 11
nography.” 13. Maltz, “Is Porn Bad?”; Bridges, “Pornography’s Effects.” 12
2. Doidge, Brain That Changes, 107; hereafter cited as Brain. 14. Heinrichs et al., “Social Support”; Coan in Parker-Pope, 13
3. Manning, “Impact.” “Marriage.” 14
4. Kalman, “Clinical Encounters.” 15. Robinson, Cupid’s Poisoned Arrow, 221–29. 15
5. Lester and Gorzalka, “Female Hamster.” 16. Van Laningham, Johnson, and Amato, “Marital Happiness.”
16
6. Mayer, interview. 17. Copulatory impotence is a term coined by the Onanians,
17
7. Johnson and Kenny, “Dopamine D2 Receptors.” www.onania.org (chronic/compulsive masturbation).
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43

marnia robinson 105

SP_TER2_12_098-105.indd 105 2/1/11 12:00 PM

 1 Ladies, Choose Your Weapons
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11 ANNE CAMPBELL “She may seem like your typical selfish, backstabbing, slut-faced ’ho-bag
12 but in reality she is so much more than that.”
13
—Mean Girls, 2004
14
15
16
Huddled in whispering groups at lunch tables, closeted in their bedrooms
17
texting for hours on end, bewitched by shop windows in air-conditioned
18
malls—what happens in the secret world of teenage girls? A rash of Hollywood
19
movies such as Mean Girls, Clueless, Never Been Kissed, 10 Things I Hate About
20
You, and Heathers has appeared to tell us. Of course, these movies are caricatures,
21
but like all good caricatures they contain elements of truth. And the message
22
is that there is a lot of concealed hatred bubbling under the surface. These
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42 Figure 1. The circulation of social force in Mean Girls.
43

106 pop culture

SP_TER2_13_106-112.indd 106 2/1/11 12:00 PM

 cinematic insights into girls’ aggression and into the social development before the infant could walk, talk, feed itself, 1
relationships in which it is embedded chime with recent avoid predators, and acquire the skills needed to survive in 2
findings from developmental and evolutionary psychology. a complex social group and ecologically unpredictable envi- 3
In Mean Girls, Regina is the leader of a high-status ronment. This baby needed more than a mother. Unless men 4
clique who is revered and loathed in equal measure. Janis, an were of unusual attractiveness and superior genetic quality 5
old enemy, decides to take her down and presents a three- (so that they could love and leave), they could improve 6
part battle plan based on her analysis of how to depose an their chances of leaving their DNA behind by remaining 7
“evil dictator”: “You cut off her resources. Regina is noth- with a single woman and helping her raise the offspring 8
ing without man candy, a technically good physique and to maturity. But for women the downside of this parental 9
her army of skanks.” These elements, together with a very assistance was two-way sexual selection: men became choosy 10
female style of dictator deposition, are a perfect summary too. Women had to compete for the best partners. The best 11
of the themes that permeate girlworld. partners were men who had abundant resources and a will- 12
ingness to share them. 13
“MAN CANDY” But this is the twenty-first century. Women outnumber 14
men in college; they are banging loudly at the glass ceiling 15
Thirty years ago, I began studying girls’ aggression. In Brit- and, increasingly frequently, smashing through it. They can 16
ain, I worked with girls in reformatories and interviewed hire nannies if they need help with childcare. Why should 17
them in pubs, clubs, and schools around the country.1 In they compete for well-resourced men when they can pay 18
the United States, I spent two years with New York street the bills themselves? Nonetheless, studies show that even the 19
gang members hearing about their lives, loves, and hates.2 most successful women remain reluctant to marry “down.” 20
What were they fighting about? Boys. This conclusion was Women rank the importance of good financial prospects in 21
not well received in the feminist zeitgeist of the time. Yet a partner higher than men. Moreover, there is no correlation 22
today, the “man motif ” runs through virtually every teen- between a woman’s rating of her own financial prospects 23
age movie, and it comes as little surprise to evolutionary and the importance she accords to the earning potential 24
psychologists. True, Darwin viewed the female as coy and of a prospective mate.4 It is as if the attractiveness of male 25
passive compared to the male, but he was describing species resource control had taken on a life of its own, operating 26
that breed polygynously. In polygynous species, the female independently of women’s actual needs. If the attractiveness 27
makes a huge parental investment with the male contrib- of male resource control is an adaptation honed over thou- 28
uting little more than sperm—which, as biologist George sands of female generations, that is precisely what one would 29
Williams succinctly put it, “is not a contribution to the expect. But there are other forces at work too. Women 30
next generation; it is a claim on contributions put into an copy the mate choices of other women—provided those 31
egg by another individual.”3 When a male gets this kind of women are themselves physically attractive.5 This provides 32
free genetic ride, he needs to compete for it against other considerable fodder for movie storylines in which rivals 33
males and the female becomes the limiting resource. Males attempt to lure away one another’s boyfriends. (In fact, an 34
fight rivals, display their beauty or their territory and bring actual ongoing relationship is not even required to trigger 35
gifts to charm the female into selecting them. For a female, antagonism: a girl is not supposed to date another girl’s 36
this moment of choice is the upside of the lonely and huge past boyfriend or a boy in whom her friend has expressed 37
future investment she will make in their offspring. a romantic interest. Nor is this “ownership” confined to 38
But something happened in our species: the develop- fiction, this proprietary view was expressed by many of my 39
ment of a huge cortex, a cortex so big that a baby had teenage respondents.) Naturally, plainer girls can only aspire 40
to be born early while its head could just fit through the to the “man candy” owned by the high-status girls, gen- 41
pelvic canal. After it was born, there were still years of erating resentment and self-doubt on one hand, and smug 42
43

anne campbell 107

SP_TER2_13_106-112.indd 107 2/1/11 12:00 PM

 1 superiority on the other. And then there is homogamy, the
2 tendency for similar individuals to mate. The caliber of men
3 that a woman can attract speaks volumes about her own
4 worth in the mating market. Conversely, even being seen in
5 the company of less desirable boys is risky. When Cady in
6 Mean Girls suggests that she may join the boys’ math team,
7 her friends are horrified “That’s social suicide—you’re so
8 lucky you have us to guide you.”
9 in the dieting obsession.7 Men do not find exceedingly
10 “A TECHNICALLY GOOD PHYSIQUE”
11
12 Two-way sexual selection means that girls as well as boys
13 must compete in the currency of what the opposite sex
14 wants in a mate (known as intersexual or epigamic com-
15 petition by evolutionary biologists). Men universally place a
16 much higher value than women on physical attractiveness.6
17 Attractiveness therefore sits at the very heart of all girlworld
18 movies. As she is sucked into the maelstrom of the high-
19 status clique, Cady remarks that “Regina is like the Barbie
20 doll I never had. I’d never seen anybody so glamorous.”
21 Makeup, hair care, and wardrobe styling occupy a consid-
22 erable portion of waking life and are inexhaustible topics
23 of speculation, censure, and criticism. The trick is never to
24 openly acknowledge one’s physical perfection but to live in
25 a state of nervous aspiration. When queen bee Regina first
26 introduces herself to Cady, she tells her, “You’re really pretty,”
27 a remark so direct that the new girl is almost fatally silenced.
28 Regina’s shocked follow-up “So you agree? You think you’re
29 really pretty?” signals that Cady’s appropriate response was
30 to vehemently deny it. In girlworld, one-downswomanship
31 rules. Satisfaction with oneself amounts to smugness and to
32 accusations that “she thinks she’s all that.” Boys may be happy
33 to strive openly for dominance and superiority, but within
34 their cliques girls are much more circumspect about the
35 open flaunting of status. A scene in Mean Girls in which four
36 of them crowd around a full-length mirror each bemoaning
37 their own invisible physical flaws sums up the prevailing
38 ethos. In girlworld films, the perfection of the high-status
39 girls is juxtaposed against the fatness, ugliness, geekiness, and
40 even physical disability of their female rivals. In Heathers, the
41 attempted suicide of a fat classmate is succinctly dismissed:
42 “Just another geek trying to imitate the popular people.”
43
108 pop culture
SP_TER2_13_106-112.indd 108
One route to toppling queen bees is by attacking their
physical perfection. Mean Girl Regina is deposed by supply-
ing her with a high-carbohydrate bar that her “friends” tell
her is a Swedish slimming aid—she gains weight, develops
acne, and falls from the perfection pedestal—to the silent
delight of the rest of the school. Female competition can
become uncoupled from the fundamental dynamics of male
preference that drive it, and nowhere is this more true than
thin women attractive, yet girls—especially those with a
strong streak of perfectionism from middle- and upper-
class families—pursue dieting to the point of illness. Just as
young men compete in risk-taking or bodybuilding, both
of which pose health risks and neither of which in excess
charms the opposite sex, so girls strive to show how high
they aspire and how much they will sacrifice. But is this to
attract men or simply to beat female rivals?
A woman’s sexual availability is attractive to men in
short-term relationships. Evolution has stepped up sexual
desire in males more then in females because those males
who copulated with a larger number of females left more
descendants (including sons who inherit their fathers’ eager-
ness for sex). But this unselective availability, so attractive in
a one-night stand, is considerably less attractive in a pro-
spective long-term partner. Fidelity is a quality that can
only be accurately evaluated in retrospect (and sometimes
not even then), but we are forced to judge it prospectively.
Concealed estrus and internal fertilization create a special
problem for men who, unlike women, face the problem of
parental uncertainty and the risk of cuckoldry. How then
is a man to decide whether this woman really will forsake
all others? One good source of information is reputation
and men are very willing to share the identities of their
flings with other men.8 A girl must manage her sexuality
carefully: too free-and-easy and she risks stigmatization. She
may be popular with boys in the short term but the long-
term costs may be prohibitive. And the sanctions for an easy
reputation come as strongly from her own sex as from the
opposite sex.9 Any girl who dispenses sex too freely low-
ers its market value for other girls: if sex can be secured
without emotional commitment and generous gifts, what
incentives do men have for serious long-term relationships?
2/1/11 12:00 PM
 Sex, a commodity that is normally more precious to men mothers to raise his offspring (of which there are likely to 1
than women, spirals down in value, getting ever cheaper and be many, if his rank is high). For a female, risking her life 2
more available. Hence girls are keen to censure and control means risking the lives of her dependent offspring. Given 3
their female peers’ free-ranging sexuality and, in an effort to the high investment she has made and the relatively few 4
avoid stigma by association, socially exclude them. A female offspring she can produce, this is a prohibitively high price.12 5
teacher in Mean Girls begs, “You’ve all got to stop calling Females are generally more risk averse than males, and the 6
each other sluts and whores.” And indeed, as I found in rewards of dominance are rarely worth an outright fight. 7
my own research, these two words are not only the most Achieving the highest rank puts an individual directly in 8
frequent but the most potent forms of verbal abuse among the firing line. In the common chimpanzee, it is possible to 9
girls. But determination to avoid the slut label can be taken identify cliques or bands of females to whom others defer 10
too far. An excess of prudishness hints at frigidity. What is but rarely a transitive linear pecking order.13 So it seems to 11
a girl to do? She must find a way to suggest enthusiastic be with teenage girls. Cliques of girls vary in their social 12
sexuality without actually compromising her reputation. As power, but they seek safety in numbers. 13
the girls in Mean Girls crowd into a party dressed in the As developmental psychologists looked more closely 14
skimpiest of streetwalking outfits, we are told that “Hal- at girls’ relationships, they discovered a strange semantic 15
loween is the one night a year when a girl can dress like a paradox. Their data showed that a group can be “popular” 16
slut and no other girl can say anything about it.” (“Name the three most popular people in your grade”) 17
Intelligence is a commodity on men’s list of mate- but not “liked” (“Name the three people in your grade 18
choice desiderata, but it does not figure as highly as it does that you like most”). What do girls understand by the term 19
for women.10 Men are willing to trade off intelligence for popular? Popular girls are visible and influential. They have 20
good looks. So a modest IQ (“one of the dumbest girls social power to set trends and control others’ behavior. They 21
you’ll ever meet”) is not an insuperable impediment to excite fascination, admiration, and resentment. Having been 22
success in the competition for male attention. Indeed, a seduced by the allure of the high-status clique, Cady raves 23
bigger handicap is being too clever, or at least this is how that “being with the Plastics was like being famous. People 24
the girls see it. When Cady in Mean Girls purposely gets looked at you all the time and just knew stuff about you.” 25
failing grades for her math course, she successfully engages Those on the outside are less enchanted. “That’s the thing 26
the attention of the rather less mathematically gifted but with you Plastics, you think everyone is in love with you 27
highly desirable hunk of the school. when actually everybody hates you.” Compared to girls in 28
popular cliques, those in average or unpopular cliques more 29
“AN ARMY OF SKANKS” often think that popularity means being mean, snobby, and 30
conceited.14 31
Girls’ relationships have revealed themselves to be consider- Within popular cliques, some members are distinctly 32
ably more complex than those of boys. Boys tend to form more equal than others. Every girlworld movie presents 33
fairly clear hierarchies in which most individuals know their us with “a queen bee, a star . . . those others are just her 34
place and jockeying for position occurs mainly between workers” (Mean Girls). Her social power keeps the work- 35
adjacent ranks. The currency of status is a combination of ers in her thrall. She has raised them up from the flotsam 36
athleticism, verbal wit, resources, daring, and sexual experi- and jetsam of high school mediocrity (“You were nothing 37
ence.11 In many primate species, males compete directly before you met me”—Heathers). Like all good dictators, a 38
with one another for status, and the resulting hierarchies clique leader holds power by a combination of prosocial 39
minimize the frequency of agonistic encounters. But when and aggressive tactics that psychologists refer to as “bistra- 40
they occur, they can be lethal. They may terminate a male’s tegic.”15 She molds their tastes, compliments their appear- 41
life but not his genetic legacy, since he can rely on the ance, ensures invitations to the right parties, and orchestrates 42
43

anne campbell 109

SP_TER2_13_106-112.indd 109 2/1/11 12:00 PM

 1 introductions to boys of their choice. She is the linchpin of
2 their social world, exerting an irresistible magnetic force (“I
3 could hate her, but I still wanted her to like me”—Mean
4 Girls). And when charm fails, she specializes in indirect and
5 relational aggression.
6 Boys are more physically and verbally aggressive than
7 girls. Twenty years ago, the blanket statement that boys are
8 more aggressive than girls constituted the best available
9 information. But then word came from Finland about a
10 new kind of aggression.16 “Indirect aggression” is a form of
11 social manipulation in which the target is attacked by gossip,
12 reputational damage, stigmatizing, and social exclusion. Later
13 this term was expanded to include a kind of emotional
14 blackmail that uses expulsion as the threat (“If you break any
15 of the rules you can’t sit with us at lunch”—Mean Girls).
16 At first, it seemed that girls were more apt to employ these
17 tactics than boys, but it now seems that boys grow into it
18 too as they mature. But in early adolescence, girls’ more
19 advanced social skills give them a head start.
20 Girls share secrets with one another as a testimonial of
21 their intimacy, effectively trusting one another with sensitive
22 information. That trust can make them vulnerable when the
23 information is passed to a third party as a form of indirect
24 aggression. The real-life repercussions of this can be devastat-
25 ing, but it also has a comedic potential that girlworld films
26 exploit. Follow (if you can) this plotline from Mean Girls:
27 Cady tells Gretchen that she likes a boy who, it transpires,
28 used to be Regina’s boyfriend. Gr etchen relays this piece
29 of information to Regina. Regina phones Cady to tell her
30 that Gretchen has betrayed her and adds, “Aren’t you mad
31 at Gretchen for telling me? If you’re mad, you can tell me.”
32 Having finally goaded Cady into saying, “It was a pretty
33 bitchy thing to do,” Regina reveals that Gretchen is listening
34 to their conversation on a third-party line. What makes this
35 little scenario unusual is that Regina’s unassailable power
36 makes her willing to acknowledge her own Machiavellian
37 duplicity (“Why can’t you just be a friend? Why are you
38 such a mega-bitch?” “Because I can be”—Heathers). For
39 the less powerful, the chief benefit of indirect aggression is
40 that the attacker can remain unidentified. The secret is a
41 secret no more—but it might be hard to discover the trai-
42
43
110 pop culture
SP_TER2_13_106-112.indd 110
tor. Indirect aggression is a way of targeting and controlling
rivals without risking head-on and potentially dangerous
physical confrontation.
BEYOND GIRLWORLD
Girlworld movies come from Hollywood, where wealthy
producers make films about rich girls. In less desirable urban
areas, on both sides of the Atlantic, there is a different real-
ity.17 Girls fight with their fists and feet. Being a “crazy
bitch” is not a term of abuse but a testament to a girl’s
integrity, heart, and reputation. Violence does not violate
feminine norms. Surely then it is to culture, not evolution,
that we should look for an understanding of female aggres-
sion? But culture as an explanation simply throws us one
step back to asking where cultural norms come from. And
it is here that evolutionary theory can help by directing us
to the impact of local ecological forces.
Aggression is an extreme form of competition for
resources, and as resources become scarcer, competition
becomes more extreme. Girls in deprived neighborhoods,
just like their peers in the Hollywood suburbs, chiefly com-
pete for boys.18 But inner cities have a high toll of young
male casualties. Everywhere young men die from external
causes at a far higher rate than women because they lead
riskier lives. In the inner city, these risks are multiplied.
Young men die from knife and gunshot wounds, sexually
transmitted diseases, drug overdoses, and work accidents, as
well as from more class-blind traffic accidents. A proportion
of those that survive are effectively unavailable to women as
a result of being incarcerated or in some form of residential
treatment. (Between the ages of twenty and twenty-nine,
one African American man out of every ten is imprisoned,
as compared to one in 150 among women.) There are just
not enough men to go around.
And of those who are available, some represent a
financial drain rather than an asset. The unemployment rate
of African American men aged sixteen to twenty-nine is
20 percent (higher in inner cities), more than twice the
rate of whites. But there are always a small proportion of
high rollers—ostentatious young men who “earn and burn”
2/1/11 12:00 PM
 money from drug sales, prostitution, protection rackets, and Buss, David M. “Sex Differences in Human Mate Preferences: 1
robberies. Typically they shine bright but briefly. A smart Evolutionary Hypotheses Tested in 37 Cultures.” Behavioral 2
girl grabs them while they are hot, profiting while she can and Brain Sciences 12 (1989): 1–14. 3
but knowing full well that she is disposable. The competi- Campbell, Anne. “A Few Good Men: Evolutionary Psychology 4
and Female Adolescent Aggression.” Ethology and Sociobiology
tion is steep. Back in girlworld, the operational sex ratio is 5
16 (1995): 99–123.
more female-friendly and the variance between prospective 6
———. The Girls in the Gang. New York: Blackwell, 1992.
mates considerably less. Perhaps a girl won’t snag a future ———. A Mind of Her Own: The Evolutionary Psychology of Women. 7
CEO, but the consolation prize is a dentist or an account- Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002. 8
ant—hardly a difference worth fighting for. As resources ———. “The Morning After the Night Before: Affective Reac- 9
dwindle, push comes to shove. The genteel middle-class tions to One-Night Stands Among Mated and Unmated 10
tactics of betrayed secrets and social exclusion give way to Women and Men.” Human Nature 19 (2008): 157–73. 11
head-on confrontation. “BM” (baby’s mother) girls quite Closson, Leanna M. “Aggressive and Prosocial Behaviors within 12
literally fight to secure the financial loyalty of their child’s Early Adolescent Friendship Cliques: What’s Status Got to Do 13
father. As the prevailing level of competition rises, fight with It?” Merrill-Palmer Quarterly 55 (2009): 406–35. 14
become commonplace and the advantages of a reputation ———. “Status and Gender Differences in Early Adolescents’ 15
Descriptions of Popularity.” Social Development 18 (2009):
as a “crazy bitch” become clear. “Getting your retaliation 16
412–26.
in first” deters upstart wannabees from thinking they can 17
Furnham, Adrian. “Sex Differences in Mate Selection Preferences.”
walk all over you. Although competition ups the ante from Personality and Individual Differences 47 (2009): 262–67. 18
betrayed secrets to punches, unlike their male counterparts, Koyama, N. F., A. McGain, and R. A. Hill. “Self-Reported Mate 19
girls rarely escalate to knives and guns. Maternal investment Preferences and Feminist Attitudes Regarding Marital Rela- 20
and the inherited evolutionary legacy of female risk-control tions.” Evolution and Human Behavior 25 (2004): 327–35. 21
still constrain the upper limits of female fighting. Mealey, Linda. “Anorexia: A ‘Losing’ Strategy?” Human Nature 11 22
Whether delivered through the cold shoulder or the (2000): 105–16. 23
right jab, competition is far from a male preserve. People Ness, Cindy D. “Why Girls Fight: Female Youth Violence in the 24
are animals, and that includes the female of the species. It Inner City.” Annals of the American Academy of Political and 25
is something of a human triumph that, for the most part, Social Science 595 (2004): 32–48. 26
Pusey, A., J. Williams, and J. Goodall. “The Influence of Dominance
we manage the tension between selfishness and cooperation 27
Rank on the Reproductive Success of Female Chimpanzees.”
so successfully. Girls may be other girls’ biggest rivals, but 28
Science 277 (1997): 823–31.
they are also their closest confidantes and allies. As to which Shackelford, Todd K., David P. Schmitt, and David M. Buss. “Uni- 29
weapon hurts most—the cold excluding stare of ex-friends versal Dimensions of Human Mate Preferences.” Personality 30
or the sucker punch—that’s a moot point. and Individual Differences 39 (2005): 447–58. 31
Waynforth, David. “Mate Choice Copying in Humans. Human 32
Nature 18 (2007): 264–71. 33
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Williams, George C. Adaptation and Natural Selection: A Critique of 34
Some Current Evolutionary Thought. Princeton: Princeton Uni- 35
Baumeister, Roy F., and Jean M. Twenge. “Cultural Suppression versity Press, 1996. 36
of Female Sexuality.” Review of General Psychology 6 (2002):
37
166–203.
Bjorkqvist, K., K. M. J. Lagerspetz, and A. Kaukiainen. “Do Girls
FILMOGRAPHY 38
Manipulate and Boys Fight? Developmental Trends in Regard 39
to Direct and Indirect Aggression.” Aggressive Behavior 18 10 Things I Hate About You. Director Gill Junger, 1999. 40
(1992): 117–27. Clueless. Director Amy Heckerling, 1995. 41
42
43

anne campbell 111

SP_TER2_13_106-112.indd 111 2/1/11 12:00 PM

 1 Heathers. Director Michael Lehmann, 1989. 7. Mealey, “Anorexia,” 105.
2 Mean Girls. Director Mark Waters, 2004. 8. Campbell, “The Morning After,” 157.
3 Never Been Kissed. Director Raja Gosnell, 1999. 9. Baumeister and Twenge, “Cultural Suppression,” 166.
4 10. Furnham, “Sex Differences,” 262.
NOTES 11. Closson, “Status and Gender Differences,” 412.
5
12. Campbell, Mind of Her Own.
6 1. Campbell, “A Few Good Men,” 99. 13. Pusey, Williams, and Goodall, “Influence of Dominance
7 2. Campbell, Girls in the Gang. Rank,” 828.
8 3. Williams, Adaptation and Natural Selection, 118. 14. Campbell, Mind of Her Own.
9 4. Shackelford, Schmitt, and Buss, “Universal Dimensions,” 15. Closson, “Aggressive and Prosocial Behaviors,” 406.
10 447; Koyama, McGain, and Hill, “Self-Reported Mate Preferences,” 16. Bjorkqvist, Lagerspetz, and Kaukiainen, “Do Girls Manip-
11 327. ulate,” 117.
12 5. Waynforth, “Mate Choice Copying,” 264. 17. Campbell, “A Few Good Men”; Campbell, Girls in the Gang.
13 6. Buss, “Sex Differences,” 519. 18. Ness, “Why Girls Fight,” 32.
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43

112 pop culture

SP_TER2_13_106-112.indd 112 2/1/11 12:00 PM

 Vampires Are Real 1
2
3
4
An Evolutionary View of the Twilight Saga 5
6
7
Books and Films Under Review 8
9
Twilight
by Stephenie Meyer. Little, Brown and Company, 2005.
10
11
New Moon 12
by Stephenie Meyer. Little, Brown and Company, 2006. 13
Twilight 14
directed by Catherine Hardwicke, 2008. 15
16
New Moon
directed by Chris Weitz, 2009. 17
18
19
20
JOHN A. JOHNSON If the female dares to wander far away or is actually near other 21
males, he rushes to her and gives her a neck bite. . . . And now 22
something remarkable happens. Instead of running away from 23
the attacker, like any “sensible” animal, the female presses herself 24
screaming against the ground or runs straight into the jaws of the 25
attacking male. After the bite she follows close behind him . . . and 26
begins to groom him.1 27
28
And so we discover from this description of the Hamadryas baboon that 29
vampires are not the only hominoid in which the male keeps the female 30
close to him by sinking his canines into her neck. Could it be that legends of 31
vampires are based at least partly on an archetypal pattern of sexual behavior, 32
deeply rooted in our ancestral line? Our enduring fascination with vampire 33
stories might become more intelligible if we ask how these stories blend fact 34
and fantasy. 35
Mathias Clasen builds a good case for understanding beastly monsters 36
in horror stories as echoes of the predators from our evolutionary past.2 Yet 37
one of the lingering mysteries of this genre concerns the prevalence of what 38
Clasen calls “hybrid horrors”: creatures like vampires and werewolves who 39
possess characteristics of both animals and humans. Clasen invokes a cogni- 40
tive theory to explain the prevalence of hybridized monsters. He suggests 41
42
43

john a. johnson 113

SP_TER2_14_113-118.indd 113 2/1/11 12:00 PM

 1 occasionally bite males on the neck, especially in the throes
2 of sexual passion.3 Vestiges of this behavior can be seen in
3 lovers who leave bruises called “hickies” on each other’s
4 necks through vigorous sucking. While acknowledging neck
5 biting in both sexes, we must also recognize a sexual dimor-
6 phism in both the larger canines and the greater incidence
7 of biting in male primates.
8 Even if we understand that a small remnant of our
9 more beastly ancestry lives on in the canine teeth of mod-
10 ern males, this hardly explains the enormous popularity of
11 vampire “dark romance,” exemplified by the recent Twilight
12 books and movies. It is something of a puzzle as to why so
13 many young women would be attracted to a hero who is
14 half monster. (Over one hundred million copies of the Twi-
15 light novels have sold worldwide, and, while exact statistics
16 Figure 1. Edward bites his beloved Bella in Twilight. are difficult to come by, it is safe to say that the majority
17 of author Stephenie Meyer’s audience is female.) To help
18 explain the Twilight phenomenon, I will share my personal
19 that creatures who cross the boundaries between animals experiences with the movies and books and suggest how
20 and humans are more likely to attract our attention. I am evolutionary ideas can shed light on the dark romance.
21 going to propose a slightly different explanation for our Looking for entertainment during the holiday break
22 fascination with vampires: that all of us are literally animal/ in 2008, I decided to watch the original Twilight movie in
23 human hybrids—civilized humans with vestiges of a more the theater. Aware that the primary audience for the movie
24 beastly ancestry. was mainly female teens and young adults, I was surprised
25 Human canine teeth are vestigial remnants from an era by the way I was drawn into the movie. “Something pri-
26 in which our male ancestors—like the modern-day Hama- mordial is going on here,” I thought. “This film must be
27 dryas—used their fang-like teeth to threaten and compete striking chords that appeal to my evolved nature.” I made
28 with each other for females. Even though the canines of a mental note to sit down and figure out what was going
29 modern humans have undergone a great reduction in size, on some day, and here I am, just over a year later, seek-
30 the root of the canine has not shrunk proportionally—a ing to unravel this mystery. On reflection, I noticed three
31 reminder of how large our ancestors’ canines used to be. dramatic contrasts in the movie that captured my attention.
32 And, despite the reduction of the canines over millions of The striking contrast of physical environments at the begin-
33 years, these teeth still often protrude beyond the neighbor- ning of Twilight undoubtedly helped to draw me in. The
34 ing incisor and bicuspid. This fang-like protrusion is usually story opens in the desolate Arizona desert, an environment
35 more pronounced in males than in females. These physi- inhospitable to life in general. Modern humans have found
36 cal vestiges, together with the homologous biting behavior ways to barely survive in deserts, but that is not where we
37 in other primates, suggest that our male ancestors bit our come from and not where we belong. To our great relief,
38 female ancestors on the neck. Could vampire legends be the heroine, Bella, is leaving this arid wasteland for the
39 based on some kind of ancestral memory? Olympic Peninsula of Washington State, where about twelve
40 The reader might legitimately ask, “What about feet of rain falls each year. While the more-or-less constant
41 female vampires?” Indeed, vampires of both sexes exist, and rain and cloud cover in Forks, Washington may have been
42 in real-life primates (both human and nonhuman) females meant as an external reflection of Bella’s depression, the rain
43

114 pop culture

SP_TER2_14_113-118.indd 114 2/1/11 12:00 PM

 supports a spectacularly green forest and rich meadows. This degree of attention they gave to a prospective mate’s ability 1
environment, teeming with life, is appealing to the modern to provide for her and her future children. Women who 2
eye because it bears resemblance to our ancestral environ- took more care in this respect were more likely to leave 3
ment. E. O. Wilson argues that our brains are programmed descendants to whom they transmitted their own disposi- 4
to expect to be surrounded by lush greenery: “People can tions in selecting mates who were good providers. 5
grow up with the outward appearance of normality in an The third contrast that caught my attention was the 6
environment largely stripped of plants and animals, in the difference between the ordinary actions of the mortals of 7
same way that passable looking monkeys can be raised in Forks and the demonstrations of extraordinary physical abili- 8
laboratory cages and cattle fattened in feeding bins. . . . Yet ties by the Cullens. Edward first demonstrates his extraor- 9
something vitally important would be missing, not merely dinary abilities when he moves faster than the eye can 10
the knowledge and pleasure that can be imagined and might follow to prevent a skidding vehicle from crushing Bella 11
have been, but a wide array of experiences that the human in the school parking lot. Even more dramatic, however, is 12
brain is peculiarly equipped to receive.”4 the moment in which Edward hoists Bella onto his back, 13
After the contrast of the barrenness of the Arizona scampers up a giant tree, and leaps—practically flying—from 14
desert and the greenness of the Olympic forest, the next tree to tree, to the top of the forest canopy. Bella gasps and 15
striking contrast that grabbed my attention was the pov- says, “This isn’t real. This kind of stuff just doesn’t exist.” 16
erty and plainness of most of the people in Forks versus Edward replies, “It does in my world.” Now, haven’t we all 17
the class and wealth of the vampire Cullen family. Whereas dreamed that we are super-strong and able to fly? Where 18
Bella drives a run-down pickup truck to school, the Cullens do these dreams come from? 19
arrive in a snazzy Volvo. Many movie viewers have indicated Contrary to what Freud and most other dream analysts 20
that one of the most memorable scenes in the movie is would argue, I would suggest that these dreams have nothing 21
that in which the Cullens make their grand entrance into to do with symbolic meaning. Rather, these are ancestral 22
the school cafeteria. Their clothing, their grooming, their memories of a time when we were able to fly through 23
stature—everything exudes refinement and style. But the the trees and perform great feats of strength. (Reports that 24
scene that really took my breath away was that in which chimpanzees are five times stronger than humans are prob- 25
we enter the Cullens’ gorgeous house. Thoroughly contem- ably exaggerated, but, pound-for-pound, arboreal simians are 26
porary, with great open spaces, white walls adorned with much stronger than we are.) In addition to a man’s ability 27
artwork, light wood floors and fixtures, and massive win- to provide for his mate, a man’s ability to protect her is 28
dows, the house possesses dramatic brightness, elegance, and another attractive quality. Edward repeatedly tells Bella how 29
sophistication. It is nestled among giant trees of the dark, he wants to protect her. And what better protector could we 30
primeval forest, visible through the numerous windows. The wish for than someone with Superman-like abilities? There 31
house must seem all the more spectacular to Bella, who is is only one problem, though. Edward also tells Bella that he 32
living in a simple American Craftsman bungalow in town is a danger to her, that she would be safer if she did not 33
with her father. If we could ask the fictional Bella if she associate with him at all. You see, he’s never met a woman 34
were attracted to the opulence of the Cullen family, she whose blood he wants to drink more than Bella’s. Her 35
might deny that this had anything to do with her love for scent is irresistible to him. He calls her “my own personal 36
Edward Cullen. In fact, in the beginning of the New Moon brand of heroin.” So why does she want to stay with him? 37
novel, Bella explicitly denies any interest in his wealth—after We could just say that her attraction to him is irra- 38
going on and on about it. Yet we know from countless tional and leave it at that. But this is an issue that ought 39
studies in evolutionary psychology that money matters to to pique our curiosity because it represents a widespread 40
women, whether they are consciously aware of this or not. puzzle: Why are women so often attracted to dark, brooding 41
In ancestral environments, women no doubt varied in the bad boys? Especially when sweet, considerate young men are 42
43

john a. johnson 115

SP_TER2_14_113-118.indd 115 2/1/11 12:00 PM

 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20 Figure 2. Displaying superpowers, Edward flies Bella to the treetops in Twilight.
21
22
23 available and interested in them? Many other young men like being uncommunicative, taking physical risks, and being
24 have expressed an interest in Bella, including the nice and prone to physical violence?
25 completely normal Mike from high school and Jacob, the Another evolutionary idea helps here. Perhaps there
26 strong but gentle Native American from the Quileute tribe. is just a trade-off when a woman greatly needs a man
27 (We do not know that he is a werewolf until the second who will protect her. Her best protector cannot be a sweet,
28 installment of the saga, New Moon.) gentle guy; he has to be a dangerous man with the instincts
29 As a relatively nice guy who has mostly only fan- and physical abilities that enable him to protect her from
30 tasized about being a bad boy, I have been as mystified other dangers. And in the Twilight movies, there are plenty
31 as other nice guys about the appeal of dark and danger- of physical dangers, including bad vampires who want to
32 ous men. One evolutionary explanation—incomplete, to kill Bella.
33 my mind—is the “sexy son hypothesis.” Unreliable rogues But I was convinced that there was still something
34 who are nonetheless magnetically attractive to women may more going on in Bella’s attraction to Edward, and her pref-
35 impregnate them and quickly move on, but if a woman has erence for him over Jacob, who is much nicer and friend-
36 a son by the rogue, the son will grow up to be as magneti- lier—at least when he is in human form. I had a hunch.
37 cally attractive as his father, helping to spread his mother’s Could it be that women believe that a bad boy can harness
38 genes when he sires many children some day. Okay, fine. his intense, primitive animal energy and transform it into a
39 I understand the almost syllogistic logic of being attracted force for good? This idea sounded Jungian—a taming of the
40 to someone who attracts many women and the way this shadow archetype, or an alchemical transmutation of base
41 helps a woman to perpetuate her genes, but why do these instinct into higher spiritual energy. This fanciful idea might
42 attractive men have to have nasty, hyper-masculine traits have no basis in scientific fact, but maybe it is something
43

116 pop culture

SP_TER2_14_113-118.indd 116 2/1/11 12:00 PM

 that women believe, nonetheless. Perhaps they even believe tive qualities will in the end outweigh his dark qualities. In 1
that they can help the dark soul with his transformation. the fictional Bella’s case, though, the consequences of her 2
This idea is supported by a large-scale study of Harlequin choices are far more profound. Like most women, Bella 3
romances by Maryanne Fisher. She found that while hero- desires a long-term romantic relationship. So convinced is 4
ines rarely exhibit significant character development in the Bella of her undying love for Edward that she wants him 5
novel, the hero reliably changes from a rogue (often with to transform her into one of the undead so that they can 6
hidden positive qualities) into a reliable, caring man willing be together for the longest possible relationship: an eternal 7
to commit to a long-term relationship.5 one. Edward resists, claiming that losing her soul was too 8
I sought confirmation of the Fisher thesis by consult- high a price. But Bella wonders, “Was this fixation with 9
ing an expert on the Twilight series—my daughter-in-law. keeping me human really about my soul, or was it because 10
Carrie has read all of the books multiple times, seen the he didn’t want me around this long” (New Moon, 518)? All 11
movies, and participated in extensive discussions of the series women wonder if they have what it takes to keep men in 12
with other fans on the Twilight message boards. Without a committed relationship; in Bella’s case she agonizes over 13
prompting, she told me that the most attractive aspect of whether she has anything that can keep Edward interested in 14
Edward and his family is their refusal to engage in the her for all eternity. “I don’t trust myself to be . . . enough. 15
typical behavior of vampires. Instead of taking many sexual To deserve you. There’s nothing about me that could hold 16
partners and killing people, they intentionally choose to do you” (New Moon, 523). 17
good. Carlisle, the head of the family, is especially admirable The polar opposite of commitment is desertion. 18
because he chooses to become a doctor, saving rather than According to some evolutionary psychologists, a woman’s 19
taking lives. It is fine that Edward is physically beautiful, greatest fear in a relationship is desertion. Desertion for 20
strong, and wealthy, but what makes him a real hero is our female ancestors was a devastating problem, for if you 21
the battle he fights (and wins) every day with his animal lost your mate, you lost your protection and provision. At 22
impulses. the end of Twilight, Bella is nearly killed by a vampire due 23
I had not planned on reading the two Twilight novels to her association with the Cullens. Consequently, at the 24
that formed the basis of the released movies before writ- beginning of New Moon, Edward and his family leave Forks, 25
ing this review, but Carrie convinced me that I must read believing Bella will be safer. The remainder of the novel 26
them because they are more enjoyable than the movies. describes Bella’s reactions to this desertion. First there is a 27
Incredulous at first because I had really enjoyed the movies, period of severe depression and withdrawal. Her memories 28
I took her suggestion and was glad that I did. Undistracted become fuzzy and she wonders if her experiences were real. 29
by the action and special effects in the movies, I became Then she discovers that when she approaches a group of 30
more aware of the psychological dynamics among charac- dangerous men on a dark street, she hears Edward’s voice as 31
ters. In particular, I noticed several classic female relation- clearly as if he were really there. In order to keep hearing his 32
ship concerns that have been described by evolutionary voice, she engages in a series of dangerous activities: riding 33
psychologists: choice, long-term commitment, and deser- a motorcycle, walking alone in the woods where vampires 34
tion. In the books, you can better feel the struggle that are killing people, and jumping off a cliff into the ocean. A 35
Bella experiences as she chooses the difficult Edward from distorted account of the cliff jump leads Edward to believe 36
among her suitors. This is the perennial evolutionary prob- that Bella has committed suicide, and he seeks a way to 37
lem for women, for they are the ones who choose mates, end his own existence. The climax of the story concerns 38
regardless of what men might think. And, at some level, all whether Bella can prevent a repeat of Romeo and Juliet. 39
men really are vampires (or werewolves, or some kind of Throughout New Moon, Bella compares her choices 40
monster), so every Bella in the world can only hope that to those faced by Juliet. “If Romeo was really gone, would 41
she makes the right choice, choosing a man whose posi- it have mattered whether or not Juliet had taken Paris up 42
43

john a. johnson 117

SP_TER2_14_113-118.indd 117 2/1/11 12:00 PM

 1 on his offer” (New Moon, 371)? Again, Bella is struggling man (as well as the typical vampire), Edward insists on
2 with her choice between the dangerous, remote Edward cuddling without sex. In this respect, Twilight is idealized
3 and the supportive, more available Jacob, whom she calls “a fiction: Bella can possess the ultimately intense, passionate,
4 safe harbor” (375). Somehow, she fails to realize that this dangerous male—a vampire—but one who is completely
5 may be a false choice. On the surface, Jacob is more often safe. And this may be a dangerous message for real women.
6 sunny and upbeat while Edward is dark and brooding, but
7 werewolves are not really safer than vampires. In fact, the BIBLIOGRAPHY
8 leader of Jacob’s clan once lost his temper and accidentally
9 clawed his human mate’s face. All men are beasts. Clasen, Mathias. “The Horror! The Horror!” The Evolutionary
10 Despite the parallels between New Moon and Romeo Review: Art, Science, Culture 1 (2010): 112–19.
11 and Juliet, perhaps the Twilight saga is more accurately seen Fisher, Maryanne. “Men, Change Thyself (Or At Least Appear To).”
12 as one more retelling of the classic story of Beauty and Paper presented at the fourth annual conference of the North
13 the Beast. (I think it is more than coincidental that Bella’s East Evolutionary Psychology Society, New Paltz, New York,
14 name is remarkably close to the name of the heroine in March 26, 2010.
15 the Disney movie, Belle.) A common psychological inter- Kummer, Hans. In Quest of the Sacred Baboon: A Scientist’s Journey.
1992. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1997.
16 pretation of Beauty and the Beast is that men are savage
Wilson, Edward O. Biophilia. Cambridge: Harvard University Press,
17 animals until redeemed and civilized by the love of a young 1984.
18 woman. But there are some interesting twists on this theme Zumpe, Doris, and R. P. Michael. “The Clutching Reaction and
19 in the Twilight version of the story. Whereas the Beast is Orgasm in the Female Rhesus Monkey (Macaca mulatta).”
20 ugly on the outside but kind on the inside, Edward is Journal of Endocrinology 40 (1968): 117–23.
21 extraordinarily beautiful on the outside but bloodthirsty on
22 the inside. Also, Edward, like actual human males, is more NOTES
23 realistically complex than the Beast. He possesses both sav-
24 age and kindly impulses. At the same time, Stephenie Meyer 1. Kummer, Sacred Baboon, 101.
25 might be painting an unrealistically optimistic picture of 2. Clasen, “The Horror!”
26 man’s dual nature. As scary and dark as Edward is, clearly 3. See Zumpe and Michael, “Clutching.”
27 he would never physically harm Bella. Sadly, in real life, 4. Wilson, Biophilia, 118.
28 men sometimes do harm women. Also, unlike the typical 5. Fisher, “Men Change Thyself.”
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43

118 pop culture

SP_TER2_14_113-118.indd 118 2/1/11 12:00 PM

 The Speciation of Rap 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
BABA BRINKMAN Reading Charles Darwin’s dogma-killing 1859 book outlining his theory of 10
evolution, what always strikes me is how easily his arguments about the ori- 11
gins of biological form map onto the lives of individuals and their personal 12
struggles, and onto popular culture. For instance, here’s Darwin asking a typi- 13
cally tantalizing and impish question—one for which he was fully aware that 14
no person before him, ever, had anything but a shoulder-shrugging or woefully 15
inaccurate answer: 16
17
Who can explain why one species ranges widely and is very numer- 18
ous, and why another allied species has a narrow range and is rare? 19
Yet these relations are of the highest importance, for they deter- 20
mine the present welfare, and, as I believe, the future success and 21
modification of every inhabitant of this world.1 22
23
Previous attempts to answer this question could be paraphrased as “the Lord 24
works in mysterious ways,” which could itself be paraphrased as “I have no 25
idea” (and the naturalistic attempts, such as Lamarck’s, turned out to be wrong). 26
But here’s an equally interesting and mysterious question: who can say why 27
one genre of music ranges widely and is very popular, and why another very 28
similar genre of music has a narrow range of appeal and is very rare? Or, for 29
that matter, who can say why one particular artist is massively successful while 30
others labor in obscurity, and why these relative poles occasionally reverse when 31
the person dies, sometimes depending on how they die. Darwin’s statement 32
about the relevance of this question to the present welfare and future success 33
and modification of species is no less true of individuals in the performing 34
arts world. 35
The Notorious B.I.G. is widely (and justifiably) recognized as the greatest 36
rap artist of all time, and in many of his songs he takes a stab at just such an 37
explanation. The obvious example would be “You’re Nobody (’Til Somebody 38
Kills You),” but since that song—released shortly after his murder—helped to 39
make him massively famous, it stands more as an act of uncanny prescience 40
or self-actualization rather than an explanatory framework. On the other hand, 41
in one of his first hit songs, “Juicy,” he offers such naturalistic accounts of his 42
43

baba brinkman 119

SP_TER2_15_119-126.indd 119 2/1/11 12:00 PM

 1 own success as “I let my tape rock ’til my tape popped” and
2 “Now I’m in the limelight ’cause I rhyme tight.” However,
3 a Biggie skeptic might object that these are actually tau-
4 tological explanations, akin to saying that evolution works
5 through “survival of the fittest” where “the fittest” is defined
6 as “whatever survives.” Why did your tape pop? Because it
7 rocked. What’s the definition of a rockin’ tape? Whatever
8 pops. But what if there was a definition of tight rhyming
9 that could be established independently of whatever happens
10 to be in the limelight? It would almost certainly be a con-
11 text-dependent definition rather than an absolute one (for
12 instance, can you judge the tightness of rhymes in a language
13 you don’t speak?), but a working definition of tight rhyming
14 could be phrased: “if the audience has specific expectations
15 a, then tightness is defined as b, whereas if the audience
16 has specific expectations x, then tightness is defined as y.”
17 If that were possible, then we could actually begin to make
18 testable predictions about who would be the next to blow
19 up and where, and Biggie’s statement that “I’m blowin’ up
20 like you thought I would” might approach the status of a
21 hypothesis empirically confirmed, the elusive holy grail of
22 the social sciences. Music mavens and talent scouts trade in
23 this currency on a daily basis, but the anthropic principle
24 (winners appear predestined because losers are invisible) is
25 at work in the music industry no less than everywhere else.
26 Everyone who predicted that Biggie would never succeed
27 promptly shut up when he did, and those who predicted his
28 imminent ascent soon loudly proclaimed their pioneering
29 early-adopter status and demanded their due props.
30 Of course, Darwin posed his pseudo-rhetorical ques-
31 tion with a well-formulated answer in mind, or at least an
32 explanatory framework, one that has become the generally
33 accepted foundation of modern biology (and is now threat-
34 ening to theoretically infiltrate the rest of the humanities, at
35 least when it comes to explanations rather than critiques).
36 Darwin drops his bombshell thus:
37
38 Although much remains obscure, and will long
39 remain obscure, I can entertain no doubt, after
40 the most deliberate study and dispassionate
41 judgment of which I am capable, that the view
42 which most naturalists entertain, and which I
43
120 pop culture
SP_TER2_15_119-126.indd 120
formerly entertained—namely, that each spe-
cies has been independently created—is erro-
neous. I am fully convinced that species are not
immutable; but that those belonging to what are
called the same genera are lineal descendants of
some other and generally extinct species, in the
same manner as the acknowledged varieties of
any one species are the descendants of that spe-
cies. Furthermore, I am convinced that Natural
Selection has been the main but not exclusive
means of modification. (Origin, 98)
Strangely enough, both the erroneous view that Darwin
effectively demolished in 1859 and its cultural analogue
remain widespread, but it is the latter I wish to focus on
here.
In the music video for “Juicy,” there is an introduc-
tory sketch in which a journalist asks Biggie, “Who influ-
enced you as a rapper?” and his reply illustrates a form
of “cultural creationism” that pervades the performing arts
world. He says Ain’t nobody really influenced me, you know
what I’m sayin’?2 Then in the song he goes on to rap the
opening bars: “It was all a dream, I used to read Word-Up
magazine / Salt-n-Pepa and Heavy D up in the limousine.”
As tough as it might be to prove empirically that Biggie
did indeed have influences (perhaps he had an identical
twin who never listened to rap?), I can entertain no doubt,
after the most deliberate study and dispassionate judgment
of which I am capable, that the view which most artists
entertain, namely, that their works are independently cre-
ated, is erroneous. Rather, I contend that all musical and
cultural genres, including rap, are the lineal descendants of
some other and usually temporally extinct cultural forebear.
Furthermore, I am convinced that a cultural analogue of
natural selection has been the main but not the exclusive
means of modification.
And what deliberate study and dispassionate judgment
can I boast of that matches Darwin’s? None so rigorous
I’m afraid, but it is true that hip-hop culture has been my
main obsession since I was old enough to know or care
about what it means to be obsessed with something. As a
result, I can say that I’ve been a lifelong student of hip-hop,
2/1/11 12:00 PM
 both as an observer and consumer of hip-hop culture and 1
also as a participant, someone who makes a living rapping, 2
performing, recording, and releasing rap records. 3
But if you saw me walking down the street tomor- 4
row and didn’t recognize me (which you almost certainly 5
wouldn’t since I’m not very famous), I guarantee you would 6
not think to yourself “there goes a rapper.” My style of dress 7
is not particularly hip-hop, nor are my mannerisms or vocal 8
inflections. I’m a white, freckle-faced, thirty-one-year-old 9
Canadian, a former tree-planter with a master’s in English 10
literature, so you might say I’m not your typical rap artist. 11
Of course, for me to even make this prediction about 12
what you would think if you saw me, I’m assuming you, 13
the reader, have a picture in your mind right now of what 14
it means to be “hip-hop,” perhaps an image of brightly 15
colored, ill-fitting sports paraphernalia, oversized jeans worn 16
well below the waistline, perhaps adorned with sparkling 17
jewelry and posing in front of a conspicuously expensive 18
vehicle with elaborately ornamented hubcaps. Fifteen years 19
ago I would also have predicted that the person you are 20
picturing is ethnically black, but since Paul Wall, Bubba 21
Sparxxx, Brother Ali, R.A. the Rugged Man, Everlast, and 22
especially Eminem hit the scene, the idea of a white rap- 23
per has lost some of its absurdity. Also, depending on your 24
level of familiarity with hip-hop culture, you may or may 25
not recognize this general description of hip-hop fashion Figure 1. Baba spreading Darwin’s memes. 26
as a played-out cliché, and you may or may not be able 27
to confidently say whether the expression “played-out” is 28
itself played-out (Biggie was fond of it, but it’s used a lot successful and widely imitated rappers in the game declare 29
less lately). Indeed, even those with an intimate knowledge these time-honored articles of hip-hop fashion dead in a 30
of hip-hop culture that exceeds my own will probably dis- hit song, just imagine how much street cred they will have 31
agree over whether any of these cultural artifacts actually lost (the fashions, not Jay-Z and Drake) in the time between 32
represents hip-hop or not, and whether there really is such the release of the song (October 2009) and the publication 33
a thing as a “typical rap artist.” If such a thing existed, of this article (next Spring is it?). 34
how would we define it? It might be especially challenging Did I say a “post-modern aesthetic”? What on earth 35
if rappers decide to self-define in a way that deliberately does that mean? Despite its widespread ridicule and ban- 36
subverts attempts by “the critics” to pin them down, never ishment from virtually all academic disciplines, the phrase 37
mind ascribing influences to them. Jay-Z and Drake bring “post-modern” has found a comfortable niche in hipster 38
this kind of post-modern aesthetic to hip-hop when they slang as a semi-ironic expression for something that is 39
rap, “Whatever you about to discover, we off that. . . . / difficult to define, or perhaps impossible to define, or at 40
Oversized clothes and chains, we off that. . . . / Cris, we the very least something that carries the presumption or 41
off that; / Tims, we off that; rims we off that.”3 If the most pretension of undefinability. If hip-hop culture falls into 42
43

baba brinkman 121

SP_TER2_15_119-126.indd 121 2/1/11 12:00 PM

 1 that category then there’s no point in going any further
2 than head-nodding or crotch-grabbing in our attempts to
3 comprehend or critically engage with it (except perhaps
4 to offer the trite intellectual abdication: “the definition of
5 hip-hop is that it’s undefinable”). But Jay-Z’s “post-modern”
6 aesthetic could also be described, somewhat paradoxically,
7 as a “biological aesthetic.” The statement: “Whatever you
8 about to discover, we off that” could be the boast of an
9 anthropomorphized strain of HIV, confident that it will
10 have mutated beyond all recognition before we even come
11 close to developing a vaccine for it, never mind its many
12 permutations. Snap!
13 Of course, there may come a time when scientists
14 discover a way to effectively disable the virus in all of its
15 relevant forms, so the epidemiological application of “Off
16 That” is only post-modern in a de facto sense (which is
17 why post-modernism is philosophically anathema to the sci-
18 ences). But there is also a sense in which the song captures
19 an essential biological reality: Darwin’s mutability of species.
20 Jay-Z and Drake are boasting that they are perpetually and
21 by definition ahead of the fashion curve, and in fact that
22 they are so influential that the fashion curve follows them
23 instead of vice versa, so any attempt to “discover” their
24 ultimate identity (at least as artists) is pointless. You can only
25 say there’s a present Jay-Z, and there was a 1996 Jay-Z, and
26 you can look at how they differ (or don’t differ) in terms
27 of musical styles, fashions, self-proclaimed identity, behav-
28 ior, values, politics, et cetera, but if you try to describe an
29 essential Jay-Z with a single nature you will be confounded
30 by counterexamples (especially since he released a song a
31 few years ago with the chorus “I’ll never change, this is Jay
32 every day”). In this view, Jay-Z as a whole is a convergence
33 of a particular set of biological and cultural circumstances,
34 a public performance of a semi-persona by an organism
35 with two parents, who themselves each had two parents,
36 who themselves had two, and so forth, and his particular
37 approach to rap, likewise, has forebears, antecedents, cultural
38 ancestors. Of course, if this is true for Jay-Z then it is also
39 true for me and for Biggie and for each of us, although the
40 biological and cultural strands we trace will converge at a
41 different locus for each of us at any given time.
42
43
122 pop culture
SP_TER2_15_119-126.indd 122
So far, so post-modern, but the fact of this mutabil-
ity does not preclude the possibility of identifying patterns,
of trying to understand what is actually going on besides
a great mystical mishmash. I have always been fascinated
by the proliferation of biological metaphors of this sort in
hip-hop. For instance, rap songs often take the form of cau-
tionary tales warning aspiring rappers away from excessively
arrogant or self-destructive behavior. This is the theme of
Busta Rhymes’ “Legend of the Fall Offs” and also of the
Blackalicious song “Deception,” which tells the story of an
overnight success who “forgot to change with the moving
times” because his fake new friends “gassed his head”—an
object lesson culminating in the chorus: “Don’t let money
change ya!” Likewise, in “Lessons” R.A. the Rugged Man
raps “Y’all be like HBO fighters, get the money and fame
/ and you get beat like . . . Prince Nasim / Yeah, you all
turn pussy when you get that green.” The charge that fame
inevitably destroys motivation, integrity, and creativity is
almost always directed at other (more famous) rappers, with
the possible exception of Eminem, whose recent albums
have taken to describing his own perpetual meltdown in
exquisite detail. These insider accounts of hip-hop culture
portray it as a social environment in which the upwardly
mobile almost invariably implode as a result of their success,
opening up the niche at the top of the rap food chain to
further aspirants, a zero-sum game (if I win, you lose) that
is less like a musical genre than a gladiator arena.
Whether or not this “gladiator model” is an accu-
rate description of how hip-hop culture operates, it is cer-
tainly an accurate description of the way rappers experience
it. It is also uncannily similar to the way Charles Darwin
describes the process of biological change in the Origin of
Species. When rappers describe their rivals as having lost their
competitive edge, of going soft, they are accusing them of
having been domesticated by fame. In the Origin of Species
Darwin writes:
I find in the domestic duck that the bones of
the wing weigh less and the bones of the leg
more, in proportion to the whole skeleton, than
do the same bones in the wild-duck; and I pre-
2/1/11 12:00 PM
 sume that this change may be safely attributed within a person’s lifetime instead of over many generations, 1
to the domestic duck flying much less, and as hip-hop personas are selected by record labels and talent 2
walking more, than its wild parent. (Origin, 101) scouts, also for the sake of utility—in this case profitability 3
(which is also a primary motive for animal breeders, since 4
This was Darwin’s singular and utterly original insight, that profits follow closely behind utility). Of course, selective 5
living things can be observed to change over time in highly breeding leaves domesticated animals woefully unprepared 6
predictable and directional ways in response to environ- to compete in the wild if they are ever turned loose, and 7
mental pressures—that species are mutable. A wild duck (fol- hip-hop contains some excellent parallel examples. 8
lowing R.A the Rugged Man) could accuse a domesticated If there were a hip-hop bible, it would contain “The 9
duck of “turning pussy” because of its diminished ability Parable of Vanilla Ice,” about the foolish rapper who built 10
to fly, to which a domestic duck might reply: “So what? his career on sand. At a 2006 speech to the Berklee School 11
I get fed every day and you don’t, bitch-ass player-hater.” of Music in Boston, legendary Public Enemy front man 12
However, this is only a tenable argument as long as the Chuck D admonished young hip-hop fans not to forget 13
domestic duck continues to get fed every day. On Christmas about their cultural evolutionary roots: 14
Eve, the wild duck might be having the last laugh, while 15
quacking warnings to its con-specifics in the pond along “I know that even young people out there 16
the lines of “Don’t let animal husbandry change ya!” Yet in have Vanilla Ice and MC Hammer denial,” he 17
the “currency” of natural selection—number of surviving said at one point. “But somebody bought those 18
descendants—domesticated animals and plants have made records.” He then contextualized his mention of 19
out like bandits (or pop stars), overwhelming their “under- Ice’s name, explaining, “The Beastie Boys led 20
ground” wild cousins. The total mass of all domesticated to 3rd Bass, 3rd Bass led to Vanilla Ice, and 21
animals is currently estimated at roughly one hundred Vanilla Ice led to Eminem. And don’t forget 22
megatons of carbon, compared to a mere five megatons that. Because evolution also teaches you what 23
worth of wild land vertebrates.4 Of course, the example not to do.”6 24
of domesticated animals was only a bridge for Darwin, a 25
bridge to help us understand that the same process that Chuck D is alluding to Vanilla Ice’s notorious sell-out to 26
slightly alters the relative bone weight in a duck’s legs and SBK Records, the ultimate act of domestication. Contrary 27
wings is also capable of turning a pigeon into a waddling to popular assumption, in the late 1980s Vanilla Ice was 28
flightless dodo, given enough time, and on an even larger a relatively well-respected underground rapper who was 29
timescale is capable of turning a single-celled prokaryote building a reputation in the Southern USA as a talented 30
into a human being. up-and-comer, able to impress both black and white hip- 31
As the evolutionary biologist David Sloan Wilson is hop audiences. He toured with EPMD and Ice-T, and from 32
fond of saying, “Evolution is fundamentally about the rela- the beginning Chuck D spoke highly of the white rap 33
tionship between organisms and environments.”5 In the case prodigy (he even did a guest rap on one of Ice’s later 34
of domesticated plants and animals, the relevant environment albums). With support from influential rappers like Chuck 35
is human selective breeding. The traits being selected, such D, Vanilla Ice had the potential to follow the Eminem- 36
as large udders in cows and a keen sense of smell in dogs, strategy of linking with a well-respected hip-hop label as a 37
are chosen either consciously or unconsciously (through springboard. However, SBK Records (home of saccharine 38
preferential treatment) by humans because of their utility. pop acts like Technotronic and Boy George) sat Vanilla Ice 39
In the case of “domesticated rappers,” the relevant envi- down in their offices with an offer he apparently couldn’t 40
ronment is the music industry, and the changes take place refuse. Ice himself describes the decision like this: 41
42
43

baba brinkman 123

SP_TER2_15_119-126.indd 123 2/1/11 12:00 PM

 1 They told me, we want you to wear these baggy
2 pants because the young kids like it and it’s all
3 glittery and polished and everything, and I said,
4 “Fuck no, I’m not wearin’ this gay-ass shit,” and
5 they said, “Well here’s a million dollars, man,
6 will you do it?” And I said, “Fuck yes.” And
7 anybody would have done the same thing if
8 they were given the same chance. I’d lick my
9 mother’s asshole for a million dollars.7
10
11 This was Vanilla Ice’s speciation moment, which held the
12 potential for him to evolve into one of two divergent niches:
13 on the one hand Public Enemy and Def Jam (and hip-hop
14 respect), and on the other Boy George and SBK and his
15 mother’s sphincter (and no respect, period). He took the
16 check and the rest is hip-hop history. Vanilla Ice’s debut
17 album “To the Extreme” was number one in the Billboard
18 charts, selling twelve million copies, the highest-selling rap
19 album ever at the time. I remember when it came out, of
20 course, because I was twelve years old and already an avid
21 rap listener. I wish I could say I was savvy enough at twelve
22 to recognize how wack Vanilla Ice was right from the get-go,
23 but it would be a lie. I was the target audience that SBK
24 Records correctly predicted would take to Vanilla Ice like
25 a greyhound to a mechanical rabbit. I bought the tape and
26 rocked it enthusiastically along with my DJ Jazzy Jeff and the
27 Fresh Prince, Fat Boys, Slick Rick, Young MC, and Ice-T
28 albums, telling anyone who would listen “and he’s white!”
29 If you’re only vaguely familiar with Vanilla Ice, you
30 might not be aware that his name has become shorthand
31 in hip-hop for “sell-out poseur,” but you probably have
32 some sense that he’s a punch line rather than a contender.
33 He was dissed by numerous other rappers, white and black,
34 savaged by critics, and eventually found his niche making
35 grunge rap metal albums, which he still produces and tours
36 with, but there’s no escaping your reputation. In a way I
37 sympathize with him, because he is now making the kind
38 of music he always intended to make (i.e., noncommercial
39 music, which gets only as much attention as it can muster
40 and no more), having publicly denounced SBK Records for
41 exploiting and manipulating him. I sympathize because he
42
43
124 pop culture
SP_TER2_15_119-126.indd 124
can’t shed the baggage of his iconic cultural status as the
wackest thing ever to happen to hip-hop, which stays with
him like a bulging vestigial organ—he can’t start over. But
on the other hand, he took the check, and every white
rapper for the next two decades suffered the consequences
of being guilty by association. Why did Vanilla Ice fall off
after his first album? He imploded not because of excessive
arrogance or bad behavior, but because he allowed himself
to be domesticated as an artist, and not just a little bit, but
utterly, and by people who were grooming him for a very
narrow purpose: short-term novelty appeal for immediate
windfall profit. He triggered the hip-hop cheater-detection
module like no other artist. If the audience’s expectations
are x, then tight rhymes are defined as y. But a toy poodle
can’t compete in the wild with wolves, even if they do
share a common ancestor. Vanilla Ice also fell off because of
an insufficient comprehension of evolution, which teaches
you what not to do. If this isn’t witnessed clearly enough
by his career, he leaves no room for doubt later on in
the infamous “what-I’d-do-to-my-mother-for-a-million-
dollars” interview: “I’m not really religious. I just believe
that there’s a higher power and that we’re not evolved or
whatever. We didn’t just come from the sand.”
So here’s the million-dollar question: Are these cul-
tural analogies for evolution just metaphors, or not? It is
very uncontroversial to say things like, “The music industry
is like an ecosystem, with various participants representing
various niches and links in the food chain, producers, con-
sumers, scavengers, predators, parasites, etc.” If these kinds
of statements are just metaphors, then they are at the very
least an effective way to illustrate how evolution works, by
comparing natural processes to familiar examples from pop
culture. How is a rapper’s bling like a peacock’s tail? Let
me count the ways. On the other hand, if these kinds of
statements are not just metaphors, then we can use them
not only as illustrative examples to help us understand how
evolution works; in this case we can also reverse the flow
of illumination and say that the basic laws of evolution
have shaped not only our opposable thumbs and binocular
vision, but also our record collections and wardrobes, every-
thing down to our choice of words and the way we pro-
2/1/11 12:00 PM
 nounce them, literally everything. In my album and comedy “model organism” for helping us understand cultural evolu- 1
rap theatre show The Rap Guide to Evolution, I take both tion. Zebrafish make an ideal model organism because they 2
approaches, using examples from hip-hop culture as bridges are transparent during early development, literally providing 3
to understanding evolution, just as Darwin did with farm a window into their anatomy. Likewise, rap music offers us 4
animals, and also looking at the ways in which we can use rare insights into cultural evolution because it so often takes 5
evolutionary theory (mainly meme theory and evolutionary its own proliferation as its explicit subject matter, arguably 6
psychology) to help us understand what hip-hop is, where more so than any other cultural genre. Some would call 7
it comes from, and especially why it is so popular, especially this obsession with fame and success a “shallow” preoccu- 8
with young people. Although I am applying these ideas pation of hip-hop, and others would call it an “honest” (or 9
to rap as a specific cultural phenomenon, they are equally “transparent”) preoccupation, depending on their ideology. 10
applicable to any genre or subculture or realm of human But whatever your own relationship with the phenomenon 11
activity, and I hope you will think of ways to extend them of notoriety, it is important to note the crucial role it plays 12
into your own area of expertise, your own profession, your in cultural evolution. Since the differential replication of 13
own life. I don’t think the “metaphor vs. non-metaphor” culture occurs primarily in human brains (and secondarily 14
question has been fully resolved by either the biological or in texts and artifacts), the hard question in cultural evolution 15
social sciences (probably cognitive neuroscience will show is this: what makes something (or someone) Notorious? Or, 16
us the way), but there are many people working on it, and to phrase it in Dan Dennett’s terms: first you rap, and then 17
it remains as tantalizing as ever to explore. Turn it over in what happens?8 The examples I have provided from a handful 18
your head for a moment. Is cultural evolution merely like of hip-hop artists are a mere surface scratching of the rich 19
biological evolution (which is obviously the case)? Or are collection of data that exists, data in the form of personal 20
they actually the same process operating on different kinds of testimonials set to music, which evolutionists can mine for 21
things (which is probable but not certain)? clues that might throw light on that mystery of mysteries, 22
Luckily we don’t need a definitive answer in order to that is, the origin and function of our creative endeavors. 23
proceed. We can remain as agnostic on the million-dollar 24
question as Darwin was about the mechanism of inheritance BIBLIOGRAPHY 25
(it’s actually the same question, but with a different answer). 26
We can say confidently that cultural practices do evidently Coleman, Brian. Speech at Berklee School of Music, December 6, 27
evolve, as do languages, and reserve judgment as to whether 2006, http://www.publicenemy.com/index.php?page=page2& 28
the mechanism of cultural inheritance is one that works so item=184. 29
similarly to genetic evolution that we can treat them as dif- Darwin, Charles. On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selec- 30
ferent manifestations of the same process, or whether they tion. Edited by Joseph Carroll. 1859. Peterborough, Ontario: 31
are parallel processes that would more accurately be called Broadview, 2003. 32
“similar but different,” analogous rather than homologous. Dennett, Daniel C. Sweet Dreams: Philosophical Obstacles to a Science 33
And just as Darwin’s expertise on geology and biogeography of Consciousness. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2005. 34
“Jay-Z Boycotts Cristal Champagne.” BBC News, June 19, 2006,
were crucial to his understanding of natural selection, the 35
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/5086482.stm.
emerging field of evolutionary psychology is mapping the Smil, Vaclav. The Earth’s Biosphere: Evolution, Dynamics, and Change.
36
fitness landscape against which cultural evolution unfolds: Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2002. 37
the human mind. Geneticists advance their understanding Vontz, Andrew, “Ice Capades.” Salon.com, January 3, 2002, http:// 38
of how DNA influences behavior and anatomy by focus- dir.salon.com/story/ent/music/feature/2002/01/03/ice/ 39
ing on model organisms such as fruit flies, nematodes, and index.html?pn=1. 40
Zebrafish. My proposal is that hip-hop culture is the ideal Wilson, David Sloan. The Neighborhood Project, forthcoming. 41
42
43

baba brinkman 125

SP_TER2_15_119-126.indd 125 2/1/11 12:00 PM

 1 DISCOGRAPHY 2. Notorious B.I.G., Ready to Die, “Me & My Bitch.”
2 3. For those with only a remedial level of hip-hop literacy,
Blackalicious, NIA “Cris” is Cristal champagne, which Jay-Z decided to boycott in
3 Busta Rhymes, The Big Bang
4 2006 after negative comments made by one of the company’s
Notorious B.I.G., Ready to Die executives (see “Jay-Z Boycotts Cristal Champagne”); “Tims” is a
5 R.A. The Rugged Man, Die Rugged Man Die reference to Timberland footwear.
6 Vanilla Ice, To the Extreme 4. Smil, Earth’s Biosphere.
7 5. Wilson, Neighborhood Project.
8 NOTES
6. Coleman, Speech.
9 1. Darwin, Origin of Species, 98; hereafter cited parentheti- 7. Vontz, “Ice Capades.”
10 cally as Origin. 8. Dennett, Sweet Dreams, chap. 7.
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43

126 pop culture

SP_TER2_15_119-126.indd 126 2/1/11 12:00 PM

 Song Lyrics as Windows to Our Evolved Human Nature 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
GAD SAAD WHICH COMES FIRST? SEX OR SONG? 10
11
Cultural products are fossils of the human mind. Such products include art, 12
religious myths, literary narratives, movie themes, song lyrics, self-help books, 13
television talk shows, advice columns, and music videos.1 Human minds do 14
not fossilize, but one can analyze the contents of cultural products to illumi- 15
nate the evolutionary forces that would have shaped the minds of those who 16
create them. This way of looking at things runs counter to the ideas espoused 17
by generations of social constructivists committed to defending the blank-slate 18
view of the human mind.2 The blank slaters suppose that minds are empty at 19
birth and that they are filled with content through forces of socialization such 20
as parents, advertising images, and music videos. I think we need to reverse 21
that causal sequence. Many cultural products contain similar elements irrespec- 22
tive of cultural setting or epoch because they instantiate our biologically based 23
human nature. Song lyrics do not create our sexuality. Our sexuality articulates 24
itself in our lyrics. 25
Some evolutionists study culture by trying to identify the adaptive ben- 26
efits of engaging in a particular cultural practice.3 Others construe a given 27
cultural phenomenon as a by-product or exaptation of an otherwise adaptive 28
process.4 One can also study cultural products as memes: packets of cultural 29
information that diffuse from brain to brain in a manner akin to the spread 30
of particular genes within a gene pool.5 Gene-culture co-evolutionists typically 31
model the ways in which our genetic capacity for cultural learning permits 32
the intergenerational transfer of information.6 Here I take an approach a little 33
different from all of these. After briefly comparing social constructivist and 34
evolutionary approaches to music, I analyze the thematic contents of song lyr- 35
ics in order to demonstrate that they display innate and universal elements of 36
human sexuality.7 Prominent themes include sex differences in the attributes 37
preferred in prospective mates, men’s greater proclivity to engage in ostenta- 38
tious forms of conspicuous consumption (bling-bling), sexual infidelity, and 39
paternity uncertainty. 40
41
42
43

gad saad 127

SP_TER2_16_127-133.indd 127 2/1/11 12:01 PM

 1 SOCIAL CONSTRUCTIVISM AND SONG LYRICS
2 Another less conspiratorial possibility is that advertisers are
3 In the tabula rasa view of the human mind, any unfavor-
4 able characteristic, either of individuals or social groups,
5 must have its genesis in some environmental cause. Why are
6 young men more predisposed to violence than their female
7 counterparts? It must be because of their incessant playing
8 of violent video games. What is driving the rise in divorce
9 rates? The ubiquitous availability of online pornography.
10 Why are teenagers refusing to adhere to chastity contracts?
11 Sexually suggestive videos turn them into hypersexual
12 young beings. What is at the root of the epidemic rates of
13 childhood obesity? It is, of course, the fast food commercials
14 children are exposed to. The list of supposed environmental
15 attributions is endless. In the mid-1980s, Tipper Gore began
16 a crusade against sexually explicit song lyrics. This initiative
17 was founded on the quasi-religious mantra that countless
18 societal ills could ultimately be traced back to children’s
19 exposure to sexual and, at times, violent song lyrics.8
20 Environmental forces can, of course, affect lyrical con-
21 tent. For example, Pettijohn and Sacco analyzed lyrics for
22 No. 1 Billboard songs covering 1955 through 2003. They
23 obtained some evidence that lyrical content is influenced
24 by the prevailing economic and social conditions. Simi-
25 larly, the depiction of women, across several media forms,
26 is in part shaped by economic realities. Whereas women
27 in the 1950s were less likely to be in the workforce, their
28 participation today is substantially greater. Songs such as
29 “Nine to Five” (Dolly Parton) and “She Works Hard for the
30 Money” (Donna Summer) captured changing labor realities
31 of the early 1980s.9 Still, beneath such variations, researchers
32 have identified certain constants in the depiction of women
33 across time. Regardless of period, for instance, women are
34 likely to be portrayed as sex objects. For example, Cooper
35 found that of songs analyzed in 1946, 1956, 1966, and 1976,
36 women were depicted as sex objects in 22.9 percent, 21.8
37 percent, 15.0 percent, and 23.8 percent of songs respec-
38 tively (i.e., no statistically significant difference across four
39 decades). Advertising research has also concluded that the
40 frequency with which women have been shown in deco-
41 rative roles has not decreased over time. Among gender
42 theorists, this finding is typically attributed to the demonic
43
128 pop culture
SP_TER2_16_127-133.indd 128
forces of the global patriarchy that rule Madison Avenue.
well aware that images of scantily clad beautiful women
will draw the attention of male consumers. Profits drive
advertisers’ behaviors, not global agendas of female oppres-
sion. Similarly, lyricists write songs that will ring true to the
listeners’ ears precisely because the lyrics capture universal
elements of our common human nature.
EVOLUTIONARY MUSICOLOGY
Pandora.com along with the Music Genome Project have
devised an algorithm for classifying songs using up to four
hundred different musical attributes (or musical “genes,” as
these constitute the building blocks of any given song).
However, for most lay people, songs engross us in one of
two ways. We can be captivated by the musical score (or the
melody) and/or by the lyrics, as captured by the title of the
romantic comedy Music and Lyrics starring Drew Barrymore
and Hugh Grant. Four of my favorite romantic songs are
“Moments in Love” (Art of Noise), “Europa” (Gato Barb-
ieri), “You Are Everything” (The Stylistics), and “Someone
Like You” (Van Morrison). The first two are instrumen-
tal songs and yet they are perfectly capable of conveying
sensuality, sexual longing, and romantic passion in ways as
powerful as any lyric. That said, in this article, I restrict
myself to lyrical content while just noting in passing that
evolutionists have explored the evolutionary roots of music
in numerous other ways. For example, Winkler et al. have
investigated whether infants possess the innate capacity to
detect rhythm. Neuroscientists have investigated the neuro-
nal activation patterns associated with listening to music and
Steven Jan has applied memetic theory to study music.10
In my forthcoming trade book, the titles of four of
my chapters correspond to songs that map onto four fun-
damental Darwinian modules. They are “I Will Survive” by
Gloria Gaynor (survival module; in reality she is surviv-
ing a romantic relationship!), Marvin Gaye’s “Let’s Get It
On” (mating module), Sister Sledge’s “We Are Family” (kin
selection), and “That’s What Friends Are For” by Dionne
Warwick and Friends (reciprocal altruism). I used this rhe-
torical device because it poignantly captures the fact that
2/1/11 12:01 PM
 the majority of songs address issues of great evolutionary share resources in their prospective suitors. Accordingly, one 1
import. Not surprisingly perhaps for a sexually reproducing can content-analyze lyrics to see those attributes that each 2
species that is endowed with the gift of language, mating/ sex seeks and offers.15 R&B and rap lyrics are ideal for 3
love is the key theme in songs across several time periods an evolutionary analysis because the shackles of political 4
and different musical genres.11 In today’s musical landscape correctness do not phase this particular musical genre. The 5
wherein explicit language is de rigueur, Primack and his language is at times raw and would be offensive to delicate 6
colleagues found that more than one-third of the most ears, but it provides a clear window to our evolved mat- 7
popular songs in 2005 referred to various sexual acts.12 In ing preferences. In the same way that one can learn a lot 8
his 2007 book Rock ’n’ Roll Wisdom: What Psychologically about male and female sexuality by exploring the contents 9
Astute Lyrics Teach about Life and Love, Barry Farber con- of hardcore pornography and romance novels respectively, 10
ducted a thorough content analysis of key themes found in male and female singers address topics that possess sex- 11
song lyrics. Chapter titles include Friendship, Love, Losing specific evolutionary import. 12
Love, Sex and Passion, Money, and Aging and Mortality, Men are much more likely to sing about the physi- 13
all topics laden with evolutionary implications. Yet Farber cal attributes of women, be it their overall beauty (“You’re 14
refers to evolutionary psychology on only one occasion.13 Beautiful,” by James Blunt; “You Are So Beautiful to Me,” 15
Extraordinary. Izugbara, investigating the thematic con- by Joe Cocker), particular body parts (“Baby Got Back,” 16
tent of erotic songs and chants of young men in various by Sir-Mix-A-Lot), and what to do with those body parts 17
Nigerian rural areas, concludes that these “are primarily (“Back That Ass Up,” by Juvenile). Similarly, women are 18
male privileging and penis advantaging, and celebrate male much more likely to sing about men’s social status, ambition, 19
sexual activity, desire, violence, ruthlessness, and risk-taking and ability to procure resources. For example, Sister Sledge 20
as well as male control and subordination of women and had a huge disco hit in the 1970s titled “He’s the Greatest 21
their body.”14 Here is a cultural environment radically dif- Dancer.” In the song, they describe a man at a discotheque 22
ferent from urban American settings, and yet young males who is construed as highly desirable in part because of 23
of both cultures seem intensely interested in sex, intrasexual his expensive and high-status clothes. Several generations 24
violence, and risk-taking. Izugbara seems to suggest that of female singers have castigated low-status men who are 25
the global patriarchy has found its way to the rural villages incapable of holding down a job, and as such are unable 26
of Nigeria, and in so doing has “taught” men to objectify to provide the necessary resources. These include “Go Away 27
women as sexual objects. A more plausible and less conspira- Little Boy” (Marlena Shaw), “Ain’t Nothin’ Goin’ On But 28
torial explanation is that men from around the world and the Rent” (Gwen Guthrie), “No Scrubs” (TLC), and “Bills, 29
spanning all known time periods share biological impulses Bills, Bills” (Destiny’s Child). Given women’s desire for men 30
rooted in sex-specific adaptations. It really isn’t surprising with resources, it is not surprising that an endless litany of 31
that the names of some hip-hop and rap record labels reflect male singers boast about the amount of money that they 32
adaptive drives for sexuality (Doggystyle Records), power have, the luxury cars that they drive, and the expensive gifts 33
(Cash Money Records), and male intrasexual toughness (Bad that they are willing to offer. 34
Boy Records, Death Row Records, Rude Boy Records, Between 2003 and 2005, the consulting firm Agenda 35
and ThugLine Records). (The term rude boy is street lingo Inc. carried out a study titled “American Brandstand” in 36
for a man who has street credibility as a bad boy—as per which they analyzed the mentioning of brands in Bill- 37
Rihanna’s recent hit of that title.) board songs. A common thread across the brands is that 38
Evolutionary psychologists have repeatedly uncovered they largely corresponded to luxury items typically used 39
that universally men place greater weight on youth and as forms of conspicuous consumption. As expected from 40
beauty in prospective mates whereas women universally an evolutionary perspective, male singers were responsible 41
value social status and the ability to procure, defend, and for most of the mentions, as men are much more likely to 42
43

gad saad 129

SP_TER2_16_127-133.indd 129 2/1/11 12:01 PM

 1 use status and resources as sexual signals. More than half
2 (twenty-three out of forty-five) of the most frequent men-
3 tions were of cars, all but one of which were of highly
4 expensive luxury cars (e.g., Mercedes, Lamborghini, Bentley,
5 Rolls Royce, Jaguar, Maybach, and Porsche). Clothes and
6 related accoutrements constituted the second most popular
7 category, the great majority of which were again luxury
8 brands (e.g., Gucci, Prada, and Manolo Blahnik). Expensive
9 alcoholic beverages (Cristal, Hennessy, and Dom Perignon)
10 were the third most mentioned category, followed by guns
11 (relevant for male intrasexual combat) and toiletries. That
12 cars are the most common product category mentioned in
13 songs is consistent with Friedman’s analysis of top-ten hits
14 for the period 1946–1980, though the cars mentioned in
15 Friedman’s study were not nearly as ostentatious as those
16 found in the “American Brandstand” project.16
17 Rehn and Sköld provided an illuminating analysis of
18 the bling-bling culture in rap lyrics, though failing to connect
19 it to evolutionary theory. They note that an endless number
20 of hip-hop songs, most of which are sung by men, deal with
21 money. They provide a list of urban terms, all synonyms of
22 money, that have been used in such songs: “cheese, ched-
23 dar, chips, dough, cream, cake, scrilla, green, loot, paper, dead
24 presidents, or Benjamins.”17 Other terms that refer to money
25 in hip-hop songs include “making bank” and “making it rain.”
26 The import of money in signaling one’s position in the social
27 hierarchy is captured in “Power, Money, Respect” (The Lox
28 featuring Lil’ Kim and DMX). Men’s desire to show off their
29 material resources is so pronounced that countless rap and
30 hip-hop videos contain the exact same scene, namely, young
31 men throwing away large sums of cash, whether at nightclubs
32 or from moving vehicles, as an ostentatious show of wealth.
33 Examples include “I Am So Fly” (Lloyd Banks), “Balla Baby”
34 (Chingy), “Money Ain’t a Thang” (Jermaine Dupri featuring
35 Jay-Z), and “Make It Rain” (Fat Joe featuring Lil Wayne).
36 This ubiquitous behavior is a form of costly signaling, like
37 that of the peacock’s tail.18
38 Trivers argues that for any given species the sex that
39 provides the greater obligatory parental investment will be
40 more discriminating in its choice of sexual partners, since
41 the costs for making a poor mate choice are greater for the
42 more investing sex. Of course, in the human context, wom-
43 en provide substantially greater parental investment, starting
130 pop culture
SP_TER2_16_127-133.indd 130
with the size and scarcity of eggs relative to cheap and abun-
dant spermatozoa, and continuing with the metabolic costs
of pregnancy and lactation, the physical stress of pregnancy,
and risks of injury or death in childbirth. An evolutionist
would accordingly anticipate that lyrics would reflect that
women, compared to men, are more discriminating and
judicious in their choice of mates, and thus less disposed
toward casual sex. Hence titles such as Janet Jackson’s “Let’s
Wait Awhile.” It would seem rather strange to most music
listeners if a man were to sing about not yet being ready
to engage in sex, and about being pressured to do so by
his mate. Men’s greater penchant for unrestrained (or less
restricted) sexuality was captured beautifully in Mickey Gil-
ley’s Don’t the Girls Get Prettier at Closing Time. It refers to
the folk belief that men relax their standards of what might
constitute an acceptable or desirable mate as the reality that
they might leave the club or bar alone begins to loom
larger.19 Are these differences the result of the patriarchy
imposing demeaning sexist gender roles, or a reflection of
biologically grounded differences in reproductive behavior?
The simplest and deepest explanation is the evolutionary
explanation. Evolution can explain patriarchy; not vice
versa.
If song lyrics reflect evolved sexual psychology, one
would anticipate that sexual infidelity would be a recurring
theme in those lyrics. In a detailed analysis of lyrical con-
tent in Caribbean music, Manuel observes that men boast
about having multiple sexual partners (a consistent theme
in the Raggamuffin genre) but chastise sexually liberated
women. As one would expect, he also deals with pater-
nity uncertainty—the threat of paying the ultimate cost of
being cuckolded. Numerous songs from the United States
have also dealt with paternity uncertainty including “Billy
Jean” (Michael Jackson), “Gold Digger” (Kanye West), and
the minimally subtle “Lil’ Nigga Ain’t Mine” (Jaheim) and
“Dat Ain’t My Baby” (Tha Dogg Pound). Of course, there
is an endless list of songs that speak of men’s infidelities,
including “Me and Mrs. Jones” (Billy Paul), “Wish You Were
Mine” (The Manhattans), and “Woman to Woman” (Shirley
Brown). At times, songs bemoan the fact that being roman-
tically involved with beautiful women forces a man into
frequent competition with other males (“When You’re in
Love with a Beautiful Woman” (Dr. Hook and the Medicine
2/1/11 12:01 PM
 Show). Durante and Li have recently confirmed the anxiety Cooper, B. L. “From Lady Day to Lady Di: Images of Women in 1
expressed in such songs. They demonstrated that women Contemporary Recordings, 1938–1998.” International Journal 2
who had high levels of estradiol were more attractive and of Instructional Media 26 (1999): 353–58. 3
were keener to engage in extra-pair dalliances. Even in cases ———. “Images of Women in Popular Song Lyrics: A Bibliogra- 4
phy.” Popular Music and Society 22 (1998): 79–89.
in which women refuse sexual advances by virtue of their 5
Cooper, V. W. “Women in Popular Music: A Quantitative Analy-
being in a committed relationship, there is always a man 6
sis of Feminine Images Over Time.” Sex Roles 13 (1985):
seeking to test their resolve, as comically and poignantly 499–506. 7
captured in “I Got a Man” (Positive K). Cross, I. “Music, Mind and Evolution.” Psychology of Music 29 8
Cultural products provide evolutionary behavioral sci- (2001): 95–102. 9
entists access to endless sources of archival material from Davies, A. P. C. Sex Wars: Evolved Psychological Sex Differences and 10
which to explore human universals. By the very nature Sexual Conflict in the Contexts of Infidelity, Persuasion, and Hip- 11
of the art form, song lyrics provide a poignant window Hop Song Lyrics. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Florida 12
into our evolved sexuality. Men and women sing about Atlantic University, 2008. 13
themes that transcend epochs or cultural boundaries. Songs Dawkins, R. The Selfish Gene. New York: Oxford University Press, 14
are expressive products of the evolutionary forces that have 1976. 15
Dissanayake, E. “If Music Is the Food of Love, What about Sur-
shaped human sexuality, whether in describing the attributes 16
vival and Reproductive Success?” Musicae Scientiae Special
that men and women seek in prospective mates, the two 17
Issue (2008): 169–95.
sexes’ different degrees of interest in sexual variety, men’s Dukes, R. L., T. M. Bisel, K. N. Borega, E. A. Lobato, and M. D. 18
concerns with paternity uncertainty, or sexual infidelity. Owens. “Expressions of Love, Sex, and Hurt in Popular Songs: 19
Songs may literally move us by getting us to the dance A Content Analysis of All-Time Greatest Hits.” The Social 20
floor, but more importantly they move us emotionally by Science Journal 40 (2003): 643–50. 21
confronting issues of universal evolutionary import. Durante, K. M., and N. P. Li. “Oestradiol Level and Opportunistic 22
Mating in Women.” Biology Letters 5 (2009):179–82. 23
Farber, B. A. Rock ’n’ Roll Wisdom: What Psychologically Astute Lyrics 24
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Teach about Life and Love. Westport, CT: Praeger, 2007. 25
Fischer, P., and T. Greitemeyer. “Music and Aggression: The Impact 26
Anderson, C. A., N. L. Carnagey, and J. Eubanks. “Exposure to of Sexual-Aggressive Song Lyrics on Aggression-Related
Violent Media: The Effects of Songs with Violent Lyrics on 27
Thoughts, Emotions, and Behavior Toward the Same and
Aggressive Thoughts and Feelings.” Journal of Personality and 28
the Opposite Sex.” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin
Social Psychology 84 (2003): 960–71. 32 (2006):1165–76. 29
Aunger, R. The Electric Meme: A New Theory of How We Think. Fitch, W. T. “The Biology and Evolution of Music: A Comparative 30
New York: The Free Press, 2002. Perspective.” Cognition 100 (2006): 173–215. 31
Blackmore, S. The Meme Machine. Oxford: Oxford University Press, Friedman, M. “Commercial Influences in the Lyrics of Popular 32
1999. American Music of the Postwar Era.” Journal of Consumer 33
Boyd, B., J. Carroll, and J. Gottschall, eds. Evolution, Literature, Affairs 20 (1986): 193–213. 34
and Film: A Reader. New York: Columbia University Press, Gladue, B. A., and H. J. Delaney. “Gender Differences in Perception 35
2010. of Attractiveness of Men and Women in Bars.” Personality and 36
Boyd, R., and P. Richerson. Culture and the Evolutionary Process. Social Psychology Bulletin 16 (1990): 378–91.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1985.
37
Graham, R. “Evolutionary Psychology: A Natural Selection for
Boyer, P. Religion Explained: The Evolutionary Origins of Religious 38
Music Education?” Music Education Research 8 (2006): 433–37.
Thought. New York: Basic Books, 2010. 39
Hauser, M. D., and J. McDermott. “The Evolution of the Music
Campos, L. D. S., E. Otta, and J. D. O. Siqueira. “Sex Differences Faculty: A Comparative Perspective.” Nature Neuroscience 6 40
in Mate Selection Strategies: Content Analyses and Responses (2003): 663–68. 41
to Personal Advertisements in Brazil.” Evolution and Human Horton, D. “The Dialogue of Courtship in Popular Songs.” Ameri- 42
Behavior 23 (2002): 395–406. can Journal of Sociology 62 (1957): 569–78. 43

gad saad 131

SP_TER2_16_127-133.indd 131 2/1/11 12:01 PM

 1 Huron, D. “Is Music an Evolutionary Adaptation?” Annals of the Primack, B. A., M. A. Gold, E. B. Schwarz, and M. A. Dalton.
2 New York Academy of Sciences 930 (2001): 43–61. “Degrading and Non-Degrading Sex in Popular Music: A
3 Izugbara, C. O. “Local Erotic Songs and Chants among Rural Content Analysis.” Public Health Reports 123 (2008): 593–600.
4 Nigerian Adolescent Males.” Sexuality and Culture 9 (2005): Rehn, A., and D. Sköld. “ ‘I Love the Dough’: Rap Lyrics as
53–76. a Minor Economic Literature.” Culture and Organization 11
5
Jan, S. The Memetics of Music: A Neo-Darwinian View of Musical (2005): 17–31.
6
Structure and Culture. Aldershot, UK: Ashgate Publishing, 2007. Richerson, P. J., and R. Boyd. Not by Genes Alone: How Culture
7 Justus, T., and J. J. Hutsler. “Fundamental Issues in the Evolution- Transformed Human Evolution. Chicago: University of Chicago
8 ary Psychology of Music: Assessing Innateness and Domain Press, 2005.
9 Specificity.” Music Perception 23 (2005): 1–27. Saad, G. The Consuming Instinct: What Juicy Burgers, Ferraris, Pornog-
10 Levitin, D. J. This Is Your Brain on Music: The Science of a Human raphy, and Gift Giving Reveal about Human Nature. Amherst,
11 Obsession. New York: Dutton, 2006. NY: Prometheus Books, 2011.
12 ———. “The Neural Correlates of Temporal Structure in Music.” ———. The Evolutionary Bases of Consumption. Mahwah, NJ: Law-
13 Music and Medicine 1 (2009): 9–13. rence Erlbaum, 2007.
14 Manuel, P. “Gender Politics in Caribbean Popular Music: Consum- Scheurer, T. E. “Goddesses and Golddiggers: Images of Women in
15 er Perspectives and Academic Interpretation.” Popular Music Popular Music of the 1930s.” Journal of Popular Culture 24
and Society 22 (1998): 11–29. (1990): 23–38.
16
Martino, S. C., R. L. Collins, M. N. Elliott, A. Strachman, D. E. Trivers, R. L. “Parental Investment and Sexual Selection.” In Sexual
17
Kanouse, and S. H. Berry. “Exposure to Degrading versus Selection and Descent of Man: 1871-1971, edited by B. Camp-
18 Nondegrading Music Lyrics and Sexual Behavior among bell, 136–79. Chicago: Aldine, 1972.
19 Youth.” Pediatrics 118 (2006): e430–e441. Wallin, N. L., B. Merker, and S. Brown, eds. The Origins of Music.
20 McDermott, J., and M. Hauser. “The Origins of Music: Innateness, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2000.
21 Uniqueness, and Evolution.” Music Perception 23 (2005): 29–59. Wiederman, M. W. “Evolved Gender Differences in Mate Prefer-
22 Miller, G. F. The Mating Mind: How Sexual Choice Shaped the ences: Evidence from Personal Advertisements.” Ethology and
23 Evolution of Human Nature. New York: Doubleday, 2000. Sociobiology 14 (1993): 331–52.
24 Mithen, S. The Singing Neanderthals: The Origins of Music, Language, Wilson, D. S. Darwin’s Cathedral: Evolution, Religion, and the Nature
25 Mind and Body. London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 2005. of Society. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2002.
26 Ostlund, D. R., and R. T. Kinnier. “Values of Youth: Messages from Winkler, I., G. P. Háden, O. Ladinig, I. Sziller, and H. Honing.
the Most Popular Songs of Four Decades.” Journal of Human- “Newborn Infants Detect the Beat in Music.” Proceedings of the
27
istic Education and Development 36 (1997): 83–91. National Academy of Sciences of the USA 106 (2009): 2468–71.
28
Pennebaker, J. W., M. A. Dyer, R. S. Caulkins, D. L. Litowitz, P. L. Zahavi, A., and A. Zahavi. The Handicap Principle: A Missing Piece
29 Ackreman, and D. B. Anderson et al. “Don’t the Girls Get of Darwin’s Puzzle. New York: Oxford University Press, 1997.
30 Prettier at Closing Time: A Country and Western Applica-
31 tion to Psychology.” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin
32 NOTES
5 (1979):122–25.
33 Pettijohn, T. F., II, and D. F. Sacco Jr. “The Language of Lyrics:
34 An Analysis of Popular Billboard Songs Across Conditions of 1. Saad, Evolutionary Bases, chap. 5; Saad, Consuming Instinct,
35 Social and Economic Threat.” Journal of Language and Social chap. 6.
36 Psychology 28 (2009): 297–311. 2. Pinker, Blank Slate.
37 Pinker, S. The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature. 3. Wilson, Darwin’s Cathedral; Miller, Mating Mind.
New York: Viking, 2002. 4. Boyer, Religion Explained.
38
Primack, B. A., E. L. Douglas, M. J. Fine, and M. A. Dalton. “Expo- 5. Aunger, Electric Meme; Blackmore, Meme Machine; Dawkins,
39
sure to Sexual Lyrics and Sexual Experience among Urban Selfish Gene.
40 Adolescents.” American Journal of Preventive Medicine 36 (2009): 6. Boyd and Richerson, Culture; Richerson and Boyd, Not
41 317–23. by Genes Alone.
42
43

132 pop culture

SP_TER2_16_127-133.indd 132 2/1/11 12:01 PM

 7. For other examples of this thematic approach, see Boyd, Justus and Hutsler, “Issues in Evolutionary Psychology of Music”; 1
Carroll, and Gottschall, eds., Evolution. Levitin, This Is Your Brain on Music, chap. 9; McDermott and Haus- 2
8. Studies that report a relationship between song lyrics er, “The Origins of Music”; Mithen, The Singing Neanderthals; 3
and sexual behavior include Primack et al., “Exposure to Sexual Wallin, Merker, and Brown, eds., Origins of Music. 4
Lyrics”; Martino et al., “Exposure to Degrading Lyrics.” The link 11. Dukes et al., “Expressions of Love”; Horton, “Dialogue
5
between song lyrics and aggression has been explored by Fischer of Courtship”; Ostlund and Kinnier, “Values of Youth.”
6
and Greitemeyer, “Music and Aggression”; and Anderson, Car- 12. Primack et al., “Sex in Popular Music.”
nagey, and Eubanks, “Exposure to Violent Media.” 13. Farber, Rock ’n’ Roll Wisdom, 59. 7
9. Pettijohn and Sacco, “Language.” Analyses of the depic- 14. Izugbara, “Local Erotic Songs,” 53. 8
tion of women in song lyrics across widely different time periods 15. This is very similar in spirit to the numerous studies that 9
include Scheurer, “Goddesses and Golddiggers”; Cooper, “Images have been conducted on personal ads (see Wiederman, “Evolved 10
of Women”; Cooper, “Lady Day to Lady Di.” Gender Differences”; Campos, Otta, and Siqueira, “Sex Differences 11
10. Winkler et al., “Infants Detect the Beat”; Levitin, “Neural in Mate Selection”). 12
Correlates”; Jan, Memetics. For overviews of evolutionary-inspired 16. Friedman, “Commercial Influences in Lyrics.” 13
approaches to the study of music, see Cross, “Music, Mind and 17. Rehn and Sköld, “I Love the Dough,” 19. 14
Evolution”; Dissanayake, “If Music Is the Food of Love”; Fitch, 18. On costly signaling, see Zahavi and Zahavi, Handicap 15
“The Biology and Evolution of Music”; Graham, “Evolutionary Principle.
16
Psychology”; Hauser and McDermott, “The Evolution of the 19. This premise has been tested by several groups of research-
17
Music Faculty”; Huron, “Is Music an Evolutionary Adaptation”; ers, including Pennebaker et al. and Gladue and Delaney.
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43

gad saad 133

SP_TER2_16_127-133.indd 133 2/1/11 12:01 PM

 evolutionary aesthetics
evolutionary aesthetics

Holland’s Savory Sauce

Book Under Review

Literature and the Brain
by Norman N. Holland. The PsyArt Foundation, 2009.

TIM HORVATH We are afraid of the brain—there, let us say it. Maybe, like icons in certain
religions, or like Gorgons’ heads, the brain is something we are not supposed
to look upon. Or, to be more evolutionarily sound, we have not evolved to
look at the brain. We have evolved, rather, to not look upon it, to overlook it.
If we are looking at the brain, something is wrong, seriously awry; something’s
broken, been cracked, the turtle de-carapaced, flies gathering, the innards come
out. Someone is dead or dying, and not going gentle into that good night.
Maybe that’s it.
Or maybe it’s that literature, no matter how gruesome or dispiriting
in terms of its subject matter, retains beauty. The spread of words across the
page—what vistas, what landscapes in portrait! Oh, to be a bug and to be able
to traverse facing pages of text word by word, letter by letter, to descend into
the valley of the crease and reascend on the other side, symmetrical only not,
the letters clumped together like jacarandas and tall and drooping voluptuously
like sunflowers, gleaming like corrugated roofs. Or to be a person of letters,
just as great, as noble, that. Our actions irreducible, treading in the footprints of
Shakespeare (he wore a hundred pairs of shoes at once; just try tracing those).
But don’t even get me started on the brain. It’s the tomalley of a lobster,
this oozing, discolored thing, and as we get closer it only gets messier—parts
grafted willy-nilly upon parts, neural sprawl like scrap-metal neighborhoods,
conurbations like the crumples in a wad of paper. Keep it out of sight—and
whatever you do, don’t let it ooze out onto the literature, damn you.
But herein lies an irony, because it is the brain, at least for the humanist,
that is too neat and literature too messy—too convoluted and involuted, too
cultural, essentially, to be reduced to scientific terminology and concepts and
causal regularities. Reduction, for the typical humanist, is a desirable end goal
for sauces and not much else. So that in six responses in the New York Times to
an article about Lisa Zunshine and colleagues studying Theory of Mind in an

134 evolutionary aesthetics

SP_TER2_17_134-136.indd 134 2/1/11 12:01 PM

 fMRI (the brain sloshed out onto the pages of the Times), and Damasio (217); from “flow” or “trance” experiences 1
we get a lot of skepticism and far less enthusiasm.1 Even traced by Csíkszentmihályi (267) on to the evidence sitting 2
Marco Roth, for whom I was rooting after his splendid essay before us about the different processing modes of the right 3
for The Believer on the ascendancy of the “neuronovel,”2 and left hemispheres that Beeman and Chiarello placed on 4
observes mainly that the neuro-evolutionary theorists tend our desks like a memo over a decade ago (202) and whose 5
to choose socially conservative novels that confirm their implications, likely massive, haven’t yet been taken up. 6
theories. Bleh. The research, in other words, is nothing new—you 7
Who will speak up for the brain without shame, won’t get a sneak peek at the latest Nature Neuroscience 8
vociferously? Who will stand up for its multifariousness, its gussied up here. What is new is Holland’s willingness to 9
nuance? Who will underscore for us that the brain is, after try to amass some key neuroscientific evidence of the past 10
all, sauce? thirty years and make it fit together, to survey the field and 11
Norman Holland, that’s who. ask the questions, tough ones, that need asking. So perhaps 12
In Literature and the Brain, Holland culminates a career SEEKING occupies an inordinate role here, gets a bit more 13
paradigm shift as dramatic as an instance he himself cites, airtime than it will down the road once we have snazzier, 14
Ronald Reagan’s turn from liberal Democrat to Republi- subtler neuroimaging techniques that will put more “f ” in 15
can folk hero (216). A well-established psychoanalytic and “fMRI,” that will capture things and events in motion, and 16
reader-response critic, Holland likely could’ve coasted on in environments slightly less contrived than smooth, blind- 17
his reputation. Instead, driven according to his own reason- ing white pods that recall the opening of Woody Allen’s 18
ing by the SEEKING behavior that forms one crux of his Sleeper. By then we’ll have studied readers and writers more 19
argument (267), he’s turned to evolutionary science and broadly, intensively, and interestingly, grappling with master 20
neuroscience, steeping himself in the literature of the field stylists like David Foster Wallace and Mary Gaitskill and a 21
and reinventing himself as about the most well-rounded writer who hasn’t been born yet, who won’t have heard 22
neuroscientifically informed critic in town. of QWERTY. By then we’ll have figured out quite a bit 23
Holland suddenly finds himself at the cutting edge of more about what’s going on . . . in them and us, and we’ll 24
research whose implications for both the humanities and have built more bridges between what goes on in the brain 25
evolutionary science have only been cursorily touched on. when we are reading and while we are doing all sorts of 26
From Jaak Panksepp he adopts the SEEKING behavioral other things that are described and depicted in literature. 27
system and makes one wonder how literary critics have Unsurprisingly we find some common ground between 28
gotten along without it. This system, which Panksepp has this book and Brian Boyd’s On the Origin of Stories, such as 29
referred to as “the granddaddy of emotional systems,”3 pro- the studies of over-attribution of agency conducted by Heider 30
pels us with the promise of dopaminergic rewards toward and Simmel, the notion of play, which is central to Boyd’s 31
everything from using our Droids to home in on the best argument and crops up in Holland’s (252), and the concept 32
hummus in Brooklyn Heights to, yes, having a go at a novel. of individual differences in creativity and style (211–27).4 But 33
Without concluding that suddenly we “get” Odysseus if we the bulk of Holland’s book is non-overlapping, nudging the 34
can do a tongue-swab for dopamine, we can posit that any conversation forward. If we are willing to look, staring us 35
behavior that bridges literary characters with their authors— down the nose are a research program or ten. Take “defamil- 36
motives and motivations—will have some explanatory legs. iarization,” the classic term Holland adduces from the seminal 37
Apart from SEEKING, Holland’s book teems with specu- formalist critic Shklovskii, whom he quotes as suggesting, deli- 38
lations about the how and why of reading, ranging from ciously, that literature ought to make the stone “stony” (152). 39
his discussion of mirror neurons (160), “what” and “where” And let us, then, turn over this stone . . . a Google search 40
pathways (30), and the disinhibitory systems that allow us to of “defamiliarization” and “neuroscience” turns up Miall and 41
read without reenacting (55), to autopoesis, or maintaining Kuiken’s study from 1994 and not much else of relevance, not 42
discrete identity, borrowed from thinkers as varied as Varela nearly enough crawling around underneath.5 The interplay 43

tim horvath 135

SP_TER2_17_134-136.indd 135 2/1/11 12:01 PM

 1 between the familiar and the unfamiliar, and the processes
2 of defamiliarization and refamiliarization that go along with
3 them, are central to fathoming what’s going on in literature,
4 which of course aims to connect with the SEEKING reader,
5 strung along by familiar elements that let her know she is in
6 a world she recognizes, yet rewarding her with the promise
7 and delivery of the unprecedented, the novel and fresh. Once
8 we start poking around at the concept, we will likely uncover
9 a hundred and one defamiliarizations rather than one—syn-
10 tactic ones, cultural ones, semantic ones. There will be those
11 bursting from the roots of multisensory neurons and those
12 that depend on the intricate interplay between hemispheres.
13 Far from being reductive, the neuro approach ought to open
14 the floodgates and expose the ways in which language and
15 concepts, devoid of their dynamic substrate, can themselves
16 become ossified, stiff and boxy as a 1980s Cog Sci PowerPoint
17 presentation. To take up one more instance, if the reading
18 brain typically puts the body into a quasi-hibernation, lulled
19 into the world of the story, Holland shows how metafictions,
20 which jarringly remind us that they are themselves objects
21 in the world, befuddle the brain, making it poised at once
22 to move and to inhibit movement (75–79). In a mere four
23 pages, Holland breathes life afresh into our understanding of
24 everything from Don Quixote to Adaptation.
25 The unfortunate chaff in Holland’s otherwise bountiful
26 harvest is psychoanalysis, which to my mind occupies way
27 too many of these pages and simply isn’t necessary for his
28 main arguments to hold sway. While much of what goes
29 on in the brain may be unconscious, do we really need
30 “free association”—dubiously claimed to be “the best way”
31 Holland knows of for tracing it (139)? Given that a good
32 deal of contemporary psychology, cognitive/evolutionary and
33 otherwise, is devoted to unconscious behavior, I wager that
34 the answer is no. Holland himself acknowledges that priming,
35 ubiquitous in psychology, isn’t doing much more than tap-
36 ping into the unconscious. Further, I could go to any HBES
37 program and open randomly to numerous studies of subjects
38 ranging from racism to gender differences in preferences for
39 novel faces between male and females, all of which involve a
40 highly active unconscious, and all of which are more likely
41 to yield something worthwhile than free association. Holland
42 is an adherent of neuropsychoanalysis, and so like Solms and
43 Turnbull, the leaders of the field he allies himself with, he
136 evolutionary aesthetics
SP_TER2_17_134-136.indd 136
at least wants a neurologically grounded upgrade from clas-
sic Freud. Nonetheless, it comes off like some weird new
hybrid sport—corticontortionist wrestling—when Holland
tries to connect literary form to “defense mechanisms” and
argue that the reader and author are engaged in a sort of
simultaneous play of defenses (153).
But what is remarkable is how easily the psychoana-
lytic portions of Holland’s book can be glossed over, and how
much there is to gain otherwise. Maybe Holland is right, and
my very refusal of psychoanalysis is my own defense mecha-
nism—something to do with my mother, no doubt—but I
think ultimately there’s too much on offer and too much at
stake to graft on the chaff. In the end, psychoanalysis will
likely turn out closer kin to the literature that we ought to
be seeking to understand, or maybe SEEKING’s the right
term. Holland’s book may not satisfy the humanists, but it
would be a shame if they didn’t sample this sauce: complex,
savory, with hints of spiciness, and sustaining enough of the
mystery that—if Holland is on the right track—will ever
drive us no matter how much we come to know.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Boyd, Brian. On the Origin of Stories. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press, 2009.
Miall, David, and Don Kuiken. “Foregrounding, Defamiliariza-
tion, and Affect: Response to Literary Stories.” Poetics (1994):
389–407.
Roth, Marco. “Rise of the Neuronovel.” New York Times, Septem-
ber 14, 2009.
The Editors. “Can ‘Neuro Lit Crit’ Save the Humanities?” http://
roomfordebate.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/04/05/can-neuro-
lit-crit-save-the-humanities/ The New York Times Room for
Debate Blog, April 25, 2010.
Yoffe, Emily. “Seeking.” Slate, August 12, 2009, http://www.slate.
com/id/2224932.
NOTES
1. The Editors, “ ‘Neuro Lit Crit.’ ”
2. Roth, “Rise.”
3. Yoffe, “Seeking.”
4. Boyd, Origin.
5. Miall and Kuiken, “Foregrounding.”
2/1/11 12:01 PM
 Neuroaesthetics 1
2
3
4
Where Things Stand Now 5
6
7
Books Under Review 8
9
Reading in the Brain: The Science and Evolution of a Human Invention
by Stanislas Dehaene. Viking, 2009. 10
11
Musical Creativity: Multidisciplinary Research in Theory and Practice 12
edited by Irène Deliège and Geraint A. Wiggins. Psychology Press, 2006. 13
Creativity and the Brain 14
by Kenneth M. Heilman. Psychology Press, 2005. 15
16
Proust Was a Neuroscientist
by Jonah Lehrer. Houghton Mifflin, 2007. 17
18
This Is Your Brain on Music: The Science of a Human Obsession 19
by Daniel J. Levitin. Plume, 2006. 20
The World in Six Songs: How the Musical Brain Created Human Nature 21
by Daniel J. Levitin. Plume, 2009. 22
23
Evolutionary and Neurocognitive Approaches to Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts
edited by Colin Martindale, Paul Locher, and Vladimir M. Petrov. Baywood, 2007. 24
25
Neuroarthistory: From Aristotle and Pliny to Baxandall and Zeki 26
by John Onians. Yale University Press, 2008. 27
Musicophilia: Tales of Music and the Brain, rev. ed 28
by Oliver Sacks. Vintage, 2008. 29
30
Neuroaesthetics
edited by Martin Skov and Oshin Vartanian. Baywood, 2009. 31
32
The Artful Mind: Cognitive Science and the Riddle of Human Creativity 33
edited by Mark Turner. Oxford University Press, 2006. 34
Proust and the Squid: The Story and Science of the Reading Brain 35
by Maryanne Wolf. Harper, 2007. 36
37
Neuropsychology of Art: Neurological, Cognitive, and Evolutionary Perspectives
by Dahlia W. Zaidel. Psychology Press, 2005. 38
39
40
AARON KOZBELT The emerging domain of neuroaesthetics lies at the intersection of many disci- 41
plines: neuroscience; evolutionary biology; perceptual, cognitive, and evolution- 42
ary psychology; philosophical aesthetics; creativity studies; visual art; music; and 43

aaron kozbelt 137

SP_TER2_18_137-146.indd 137 2/1/11 12:01 PM

 1 literature, among others. This domain thus includes some of
2 the most basic questions of human values and experience.
3 That’s a powerful attraction, but trying to synthesize such
4 a constellation of diverse disciplines is daunting, especially
5 since some have contradictory biases in ideas and methods,
6 and many of the subjects are imperfectly understood. Fortu-
7 nately, this has not stopped some adventurous scholars from
8 taking on this enterprise. Neuroaesthetics was inaugurated
9 in its established form in the late 1990s and early 2000s
10 by neuroscientists such as Semir Zeki, V. S. Ramachandran,
11 and Margaret Livingstone, and it has expanded rapidly since
12 then.1 The last five years have seen a significant growth in
13 academic and lay-audience publications, including a Wiki-
14 pedia entry, a neuroaesthetics website, and a neuroaesthetics
15 blog—the latter two under the aegis of Semir Zeki.2 Its
16 themes appear in various electronic incarnations, with a
17 respectable Internet presence: my Google search on “neuro-
18 aesthetics” yielded more than 41,000 hits. From the perspec-
19 tive of pluralistic intellectual excitement, neuroaesthetics is
20 indeed a house with many mansions, rife with opportunities
21 for discovery and collaboration.
22 The competing claims of contributing disciplines
23 create dynamic tensions in neuroaesthetics. Any attempt at
24 long-term interdisciplinarity involves maintaining a delicate
25 balancing act; as a discipline matures and evolves its own set
26 of principles and methodologies, its contributing disciplines
27 often try to assert primacy and subsume their counterparts.
28 While exploring this theme, I’ll describe the state of the
29 art in neuroaesthetics, identifying points of strength and
30 weakness and assessing longer-term prospects.
31
32 FIRST PRINCIPLES AND HISTORICAL BACKDROP
33
34 As might be expected of a young discipline, the defini-
35 tion, scope, and emphases of neuroaesthetics vary almost
36 researcher by researcher. Here, following Skov and Varta-
37 nian, I regard neuroaesthetics as “the study of the neural
38 processes that underlie aesthetic behavior.” I concur with
39 their view that “there are forms of interaction with objects
40 that can be called ‘aesthetic.’ The job of neuroaesthetics is
41 to identify these aesthetic functions and to investigate their
42 neurobiological causes.”3
43
The compound nature of the very word neuroaesthetics
suggests a rift, or at least a division of labor, between two
sets of domains. The neurobiological aspect includes methods
more or less straightforwardly imported from mainstream
neuroscience: neuroimaging techniques like fMRI, PET,
SPECT, and ERP; case studies of individuals with focal brain
lesions or neurological disorders (dementias and other forms
of neurodegeneration, epilepsy, migraines, etc.); investigations
of other special populations (e.g., savants, persons with Wil-
liams syndrome); laterality and handedness research; studies
of genetic, hormonal, and neurotransmitter-based effects; and
inquiries into evolutionary issues. Researchers using most
of these approaches share an assumption that higher-order
mental processes and experience can be understood through
a bottom-up examination of neural structures and processes.
The aesthetics side divides itself chiefly between phil-
osophical speculation, dating back to the ancient Greeks, and
empirical research. The current meaning of the word aesthet-
ics—meaning taste, a sense of beauty, or sensory cognition,
in contrast to a mere sensation—was introduced in 1735
by Alexander Gottlieb Baumgarten.4 Experimental work
began with Fechner’s psychophysical research on the Golden
Section,5 published in 1876. Nearly a century later, largely
through the pioneering work of Daniel Berlyne, labora-
tory studies grounded aesthetics in a more methodologically
rigorous psychobiological framework.6 Though well outside
the mainstream of scientific psychology, empirical aesthetics
since Berlyne has remained an active area of research.7 Prac-
titioners in the fine arts, as well as historians of literature,
art, and music, have also had their say about the nature
of aesthetics, but their insights have rarely been articulated
systematically enough to test hypotheses in a rigorous way.
Historically, these currents of scholarly activity, though
investigating a common set of phenomena, have operated
with striking independence—at least until recently. What
changed? The answer is almost certainly the maturation of
neuroscience, which, with the advent of more sophisticated
noninvasive imaging techniques, catalyzed the early expan-
sion of neuroaesthetics. As many have noted, this endeavor is
very much in the spirit of the notion of consilience, a syn-
thesis of different domains of knowledge. In E. O. Wilson’s
conception,8 consilience is implicitly centered on biological

138 evolutionary aesthetics

SP_TER2_18_137-146.indd 138 2/1/11 12:01 PM

 and evolutionary principles and levels of analysis—a theme Among academic publications, Neuroaesthetics, edited 1
to which we will return. by Martin Skov and Oshin Vartanian, offers the best start- 2
A wonderful 1995 essay by Richard Latto captures ing point for understanding contemporary neuroaesthetics. 3
the spirit of the enterprise, at least with respect to visual It contains work by many prominent (and up-and-coming) 4
art: “The techniques used by artists and the forms they scholars; its interweaving of disciplines conveys a palpable 5
select succeed because they exploit the properties of the sense of excitement; it is well balanced in coverage; and its 6
visual system, and, through their work, artists have indi- contributors frequently offer thoughtful comments on both 7
rectly been defining the nature of visual processes, often strengths and weaknesses in the field. Topics include creativity, 8
before these processes have been investigated scientifically.”9 emotion, measurement, definitions of art and art behaviors, 9
Livingstone’s efforts to demonstrate that the effects of great and levels of analysis. Amid these riches, however, the theme 10
artworks can be understood in neurobiological terms offer of evolution is oddly absent from most of the chapters— 11
a representative example of research from this era.10 For strange, given the relevance of evolutionary processes for the 12
instance, she argues that the teasing quality of Leonardo’s present structure and functioning of the human brain.11 13
Mona Lisa can be understood via differences in spatial fre- Evolutionary and Neurocognitive Approaches to Aesthetics, 14
quency processing across the visual field. Specifically, a more Creativity, and the Arts, edited by Martindale, Locher, and 15
pronounced smile is apparent at coarser spatial frequencies; Petrov, concerns itself with topics similar to those in the vol- 16
thus, a peripheral glance suggests a strong grin. But with ume edited by Skov and Vartanian, but, as the title suggests, 17
a direct foveation and processing of finer spatial frequen- it has a more overtly evolutionary orientation. Its contribu- 18
cies around the sitter’s mouth, her smile coyly disappears. tors explore the evolutionary origins of the arts, neural cor- 19
Leonardo’s prescient intuitive understanding of differential relates of creativity, possible genetic bases of creative thought, 20
spatial frequency processing, and his exploitation of it to an and the possible adaptive function of the arts—a continuing 21
artistic end, is textbook neuroaesthetics. point of heady debate.12 Our understanding of such topics 22
Such research provocatively suggested that the neural is even more rudimentary than our knowledge of “classic” 23
underpinnings of perceptual processing could be profitably issues in neuroaesthetics, but the essays nonetheless suggest 24
applied to understanding aesthetic experience. Much of this how these issues can be approached empirically and also 25
turn-of-the-millennium work was focused on the visual linked to traditional neuroaesthetics. 26
arts. In more recent years, the scope of neuroaesthetics has Like the volume edited by Martindale and colleagues, 27
broadened to include virtually every modality and medium: Mark Turner’s collection The Artful Mind: Cognitive Science 28
music, literature, film, dance, and others. and the Riddle of Human Creativity has an explicit evolution- 29
ary orientation, and it is largely directed toward the ori- 30
CONTEMPORARY NEUROAESTHETICS: gins of art. The Artful Mind, showcasing a roster of eminent 31
THE SEDUCTIVENESS OF NEUROSCIENCE cognitive scientists, emerged from a collaborative residential 32
research program at the Center for Advanced Study in the 33
The dominance of neuroscience within contemporary neu- Behavioral Sciences at Stanford University. Many of the 34
roaesthetics promotes a stimulating contact with evolution- essays sketch out models of fundamental cognitive mecha- 35
ary theory, but it also entails two serious risks: a bias toward nisms and explore the contributions such mechanisms might 36
explaining higher-order experiential phenomena in terms of make to the aesthetic faculties of the modern human mind. 37
lower-order mechanisms, with a concomitant risk of neuro- Such ideas pervade the neuroaesthetics literature, but they 38
determinism, and an inadequate conception of creativity, usually fail to satisfy researchers looking for solid empirical 39
which also hampers connections between different levels of evidence in explanations of aesthetic experience.13 Viewed 40
analysis. I’ll come back to these two problems. First, though, pessimistically, this is, for the moment, an impassable lacuna; 41
I’ll briefly describe the specific books under review. optimistically, a frontier for vigorous exploration. 42
43

aaron kozbelt 139

SP_TER2_18_137-146.indd 139 2/1/11 12:01 PM

 1 A bottom-up, basic-mechanism-driven approach is
2 characteristic of much neuroaesthetics research, but it is
3 not universal. An alternative is to ground the enterprise in
4 neurological case studies, directly taking on the real-world
5 intersection of neuroscience and the arts in all its individual,
6 idiosyncratic complexity. One recent contribution along these
7 lines, Oliver Sacks’ well-publicized Musicophilia, details cases
8 bearing on a wide range of musical topics, often emphasizing
9 the therapeutic benefits of music. Sacks’ engaging, moving
10 treatment highlights the potential for applied aspects of musi-
11 cal neuroaesthetics; fans will certainly not be disappointed.
12 Dahlia W. Zaidel’s Neuropsychology of Art: Neurological,
13 Cognitive, and Evolutionary Perspectives, covering both music
14 and visual art, is a more academic read. Besides a discus-
15 sion of the evolutionary origins of the arts (with a ver-
16 dict favoring sexual selection), it contains much the most
17 comprehensive and detailed collection of neurological case
18 studies of artists and musicians. Such accounts furnish a
19 rich starting point for the further investigation of the role
20 of the brain in creativity. Despite dealing with rare popula-
21 tions, Zaidel generalizes from the key findings, arguing for
22 a diffuse representation of the neuronal basis of art. While
23 visual art and music occupy the lion’s share of the text, she
24 devotes several chapters to important but still underrepre-
25 sented topics such as beauty, emotion, and creativity, and
26 she closes with a laudable call for more efforts at effective
27 empirical investigation.
28 Several other texts touching on the neuroaesthet-
29 ics of music are worth mentioning. Daniel J. Levitin has
30 two recent popular books, This Is Your Brain on Music: The
31 Science of a Human Obsession and The World in Six Songs:
32 How the Musical Brain Created Human Nature. Levitin dis-
33 cusses an impressive array of themes, from the perception
34 of basic sound patterns to musical expertise, emotion, and
35 music’s evolutionary origins. These two books are replete
36 with contemporary pop song references (and, alas, abundant
37 name dropping), but they provide a rich sense of current
38 psychological and neuroscience research on music, at mul-
39 tiple levels of analysis. Musical Creativity, edited by Deliège
40 and Wiggins, has a comparable scope. Its twenty-two chap-
41 ters are somewhat uneven, but some of the strongest are
42 neuroscience intensive. However, the general discussion of
43
140 evolutionary aesthetics
SP_TER2_18_137-146.indd 140
creativity in this volume seems inclusive to a fault, largely
sidestepping the more hard-nosed, value-laden aspects of
creative achievement, which ironically form the basis of
intense aesthetic interest in the first place. This vacillation
about the nature of creativity is characteristic of the broader
neuroaesthetics literature. I’ll come back to that.
The literary—or at least reading—domain boasts two
recent magisterial accounts by leading scholars in the field,
Maryanne Wolf ’s Proust and the Squid: The Story and Sci-
ence of the Reading Brain, and Stanislas Dehaene’s Reading
in the Brain: The Science and Evolution of a Human Invention.
Both elegantly lay out much of the neural circuitry that is
employed in the activity of reading, not only describing the
relevant structures and functions, but explaining the mecha-
nisms by which this circuitry arose. From an evolutionary
perspective, written language differs from other domains—
visual art, music, dance, or even spoken language—in its
extreme artificiality, having arisen only in the last few
thousand years. Reading thus strongly engages mechanisms
of neural plasticity and neuronal recycling (emphasized in
both treatments). Such mechanisms probably have some
implications for other artistic domains as well. The two
books have some common structural elements, including
a strong developmental focus, with implications for edu-
cators and clinicians dealing with dyslexia. Dehaene’s text
focuses more on neuroimaging than Wolf ’s. Wolf ’s offers a
more detailed treatment of the historical development of
written language across different cultures. Wolf probes the
implications of written language for brain reorganization
and offers provocative projections to future potential courses
of human symbolic development. What are the relations
between variations in the neural organization of the aes-
thetic faculty and the development of symbol systems and
artistic styles across different times and cultures? That is
an ambitious, provocative question, which should certainly
be further explored across domains. While both books are
limited in their treatments of higher-order issues of aesthetic
quality, Wolf opens with a rhapsodic Proustian illustration
of the panoply of cognitive processes brought into play by
encounters with great imaginative literature, and she thus
also effectively evokes the consciousness-expanding charac-
ter of such encounters.
2/1/11 12:01 PM
 Jonah Lehrer’s Proust Was a Neuroscientist offers a topic of creativity from many perspectives (e.g., develop- 1
refreshing contrast to the emphasis on lower-level mecha- mental, psychometric, cognitive, and social psychological), 2
nisms or domain specificity in the books already described. and they have given attention to levels of creative achieve- 3
Lehrer’s book is a delightful popularization of neuroaes- ment extending from immortal masterworks down to Joe 4
thetics and should have a broad appeal to lay audiences. Sixpack’s moments of personal insight. Given this hetero- 5
The title reflects a party line of neuroaesthetics: the idea geneity, it is not surprising that the field is far from uni- 6
that great artistic creators have anticipated many scien- fied. Moreover, probably only a small portion of research 7
tific discoveries about the operations of the brain. Lehrer has transcended conclusions that could be garnered through 8
articulates this common idea entirely through biographical armchair speculation.16 The potential for genuinely new 9
case studies of eminent creators. In scope and range, Leh- insight seems greatest in areas not amenable to introspec- 10
rer’s book is similar to Howard Gardner’s Creating Minds.14 tion, including the biological and neural bases of creative 11
Gardner used his cases to personify the theory of multiple thought. Experimental work linking creative thought to 12
intelligences. Lehrer uses his to illustrate a broad array of particular biological or neuroscience principles goes back 13
topics central to contemporary neuroscience and, by exten- several decades, but in parallel with empirical research into 14
sion, neuroaesthetics: Walt Whitman (embodiment), George aesthetics, the real surge has happened only in the last ten 15
Eliot (neural plasticity), Auguste Escoffier (the chemistry or so years. Applying neuroimaging techniques to divergent 16
of taste), Marcel Proust (the malleability of memory), Paul thinking and insight problem solving has provided a main 17
Cézanne (top-down visual processing), Igor Stravinsky (nov- impetus to research—witness, for instance, recent work by 18
elty and surprise in music processing), Gertrude Stein (the scientists such as John Kounios and Mark Jung-Beeman.17 19
deep structure of language), and Virginia Woolf (the ever- Kenneth M. Heilman’s Creativity and the Brain, the 20
changing self). Lehrer, who worked as a technician in the main book-length study in this area, takes up many themes, 21
neuroscience lab of Nobel laureate Eric Kandel, blends nar- 22
ratives on the lives and works of these creators with elegant 23
descriptions of recent discoveries in cognitive science and 24
neuroscience. In contrast to research that focuses only on 25
the reception of the arts, Lehrer foregrounds their genera- 26
tive aspect, that is, creativity. Lehrer’s contextualization of 27
each creator’s life and milieu provides a rich understanding 28
of the creative purposes that neuroaesthetic processes can 29
serve. Although many researchers acknowledge that neuro- 30
aesthetics should ultimately aim to illuminate the creation 31
of art as well as its appreciation, thus far little work has 32
actually been produced in this area. Creativity—my own 33
area of research—is often misunderstood, but it has immense 34
potential for enriching neuroaesthetics. 35
36
WHAT ABOUT CREATIVITY? 37
38
Creativity has been a subject of scientific study for only 39
about sixty years. In that time, a vast literature has aris- 40
en, largely in psychology, and in recent years the pace of 41
research has accelerated.15 Researchers have approached the Figure 1. The artistic brain, drawing by Aaron Kozbelt. 42
43

aaron kozbelt 141

SP_TER2_18_137-146.indd 141 2/1/11 12:01 PM

 1 including imagery, handedness, and the role of neurotrans-
2 mitters. At first (or even second) glance, these topics might
3 seem marginal to creativity. Like Zaidel, Heilman offers a
4 solid review of the relevant neuroscience literature, and
5 his book is peppered with endearing personal anecdotes.
6 Unfortunately, he treats creativity in a fairly simplistic way
7 and relies too heavily, though not uncritically, on books by
8 Eysenck and Simonton.18 Many ideas seem underdeveloped
9 or just on the wrong track. To cite one example, consider
10 the claim that Michelangelo “was able to see David in the
11 marble block, even before he lifted his hammer, and he
12 ‘released’ this beautiful masterpiece from this stone” (154).
13 This oversimplification is almost certainly a misinterpreta-
14 tion of a stray remark by Michelangelo. It implies a purely
15 linear creative process and ignores the unprecedented variety
16 of approaches Michelangelo brought to marble sculpture.
17 Moreover, it hardly jibes with the fact that Michelangelo
18 sometimes made radical changes at the eleventh hour.19 This
19 kind of comment trivializes the complexity of the creative
20 process and misrepresents its essential character.
21 Such questionable remarks about creativity are not
22 peculiar to the visual arts. For instance, in music, much
23 has been made—by scholars as distinguished as Sacks and
24 Levitin—of Maurice Ravel’s 1928 masterwork Bolero, with
25 its fifteen-minute repetition of a single melody in a kalei-
26 doscopically changing orchestration.20 The neuroaesthetic
27 notoriety of Bolero derives from the observation that Ravel
28 (1875–1937) likely suffered from a progressive neurodegen-
29 erative disorder in the last years of his life, which especially
30 affected his left frontal and anterior temporal lobes and
31 perhaps the dopamine system as well. The logic here seems
32 to be that the oddness of Bolero was a direct, straightforward
33 consequence of Ravel’s neurological impairment, which
34 compromised his sense of pitch but preserved an ability to
35 manipulate timbral effects. That explanation is inadequate. In
36 the five active years of composition postdating Bolero, Ravel,
37 never a fast worker, wrote several major compositions: the
38 orchestral La Valse in 1929, two piano concertos from 1929
39 to 1931, and, finally, three songs, Don Quichotte à Dulcinée,
40 in 1933 and 1934. All these compositions are generally con-
41 sidered masterworks by music critics,21 and none of them
42 duplicates the singular features of Bolero.
43
142 evolutionary aesthetics
SP_TER2_18_137-146.indd 142
The standard account of Bolero’s genesis reflects a bot-
tom-up bias, a kind of neuro-determinism that reduces cre-
ativity to a biological phenomenon. There is no one-to-one
correspondence between brain states and modes of creativ-
ity. Neuro-determinism tacitly elides the complex problem-
solving dynamic of the creative process. Neuro-determinists
thus overlook the possibility that the distinguishing features
of Bolero could have been the consequence of deliberate
artistic decisions. Ravel’s earlier works display numerous
structural innovations—for instance, the “Pantoum” move-
ment of his Piano Trio, in which the music echoes the
organization of that kind of Malaysian verse form. And his
orchestral wizardry was second to none. To my knowledge,
no one has posited a similar (though apparently temporary!)
neurological condition for Dmitri Shostakovich, who inter-
rupted the first movement of his Leningrad Symphony with
a ten-minute passage of precisely the same kind as that in
Bolero—an ostinato rhythm on the snare drum, over which
a single tune is repeated by various instruments in a con-
tinuous crescendo. If this was a deliberate compositional
decision on Shostakovich’s part, why would the same not
be said of Ravel?
This critique of neuro-determinism is not intended
to suggest a radical dualism between brain and mind. I am
not claiming that Ravel’s compositions did not ultimately
arise through the activity of his brain. I am, rather, urging
a cautionary point: that we should resist the temptation to
formulate unidirectional biological explanations for complex
creative or aesthetic phenomena. We need to give care-
ful consideration to higher-order possibilities, for instance
social factors.22 We need to focus on the interaction between
higher- and lower-level explanations. As Zaidel wisely notes,
Ravel preserved productive artistic skills “even as highly
localized functions became severely compromised” (91). This
instance should make us mindful of the complexity of cre-
ative phenomena and the resourcefulness of great creators.
Lehrer constructs a similar argument about the limits of
determinism, urging that domains like molecular biology
should focus on how genes interact with the real world,
how nature interacts with nurture. “This uncharted area is
where the questions get interesting (and inextricably dif-
ficult)” (45).
2/1/11 12:01 PM
 THE FUTURE OF NEUROAESTHETICS? strength, counterbalancing that of neuroscience, supposed 1
to come from? One possibility is from another member 2
Constructing a richly interconnected neuroaesthetic plu- domain; however, it is not clear how viable some of these 3
ralism, adequate to the complexity of the phenomena it candidates would be. I doubt that a non-empirical philo- 4
wishes to address, is a lofty aspiration. It is not yet clear sophical aesthetics has much to contribute, given the com- 5
that neuroaesthetics, as an emerging discipline, is on track plexity of the phenomena and the fact that they are not 6
to meet that goal. The reductionist tendency to attribute very amenable to introspection. I am similarly pessimistic 7
aesthetic and creative phenomena largely or essentially to about art history; on this point, I’ll let a personal anecdote 8
brain states pervades neuroaesthetics. It also bears strongly suffice. A relative of mine, enrolled in a top-flight American 9
on the future prospects for its development as an interdisci- graduate program in art history, showed me the syllabus of 10
plinary endeavor. Neuroscience, having been in recent times the first-semester survey course, which had not a single 11
the prime mover, seems poised to be not just a co-equal mention of anything related to the scientific knowledge of 12
with other contributing subjects, or even primus inter pares, visual perception processes, cognitive psychology, neurosci- 13
but to assume an overwhelming predominance. Since neuro- ence, or evolution—but, of course, no shortage of weekly 14
aesthetics itself has not been a central topic within broader “isms” buying straight into the so-called Standard Social 15
neuroscience, this reductionist tendency could relegate it to Sciences Model, denying the relevance of evolutionary pro- 16
a fringe area, orphaned inside its base domain—rather like cesses for understanding cultural processes—including art. 17
the study of creativity within broader scientific psychology. In fairness, this trend is not universal. Witness the 18
Neuroaesthetics’ most characteristic strength is its ability to emergence of the domain of “neuroarthistory,” pioneered 19
identify the neural bases of aesthetic experience. Taken to an by art historian John Onians, with the collaboration of 20
extreme, that strength ironically becomes the central weak- Semir Zeki. Onians, who got his PhD under the great art 21
ness in the whole enterprise, threatening the very existence historian E. H. Gombrich, taught the first postgraduate art 22
of neuroaesthetics as a self-sufficient, interdisciplinary area history course with a neuroscience component in 2004. 23
of scholarship. In Neuroarthistory: From Aristotle and Pliny to Baxandall and 24
In this situation, some observers might make appeal to Zeki, he articulates his vision of the new domain and argues 25
natural selection: in an emerging domain, the accumulation for a long intellectual back history to it. Some populariza- 26
of reliable knowledge should be paramount; contributors tions have likewise incorporated neuroaesthetics themes into 27
should be left simply to fight it out, with those in the art historical discourse.23 For now, however, this approach 28
strongest or most rapidly developing domain claiming the remains in the minority. 29
prize. That stance would raise several questions: How can Just as neuroscience has made great strides by embrac- 30
progress be judged? How can inter-domain differences in ing a thoroughgoing empiricism, there is hope for a poten- 31
the generation, elaboration, and social reception of ideas be tial contribution from scientific psychology—at its best, just 32
accounted for? Might “fast” results be too superficial? Would as data rich and rigorous, and not just a poor man’s neu- 33
this ethos move the discussion away from “softer” or high- roscience. The standard laboratory and statistical method- 34
risk questions or levels of analysis? There are also practical ologies of scientific psychology inform different questions 35
difficulties in the application of neuroscience techniques and levels of analysis that pertain directly to aesthetics and 36
to phenomena that are usually not directly observable, for creativity. To cite an example venerable in the art history 37
instance, the nature of creativity in historically eminent indi- literature and relevant to considerations of visual arts aes- 38
viduals, or the phylogenetic basis of the aesthetic faculty thetics and pedagogy: realistic drawing skill. How can the 39
throughout hominid evolution. ability of trained artists to “draw what they see” be under- 40
If, at least in the short term, strong interdisciplinar- stood? Inferences about artists’ perception and cognition 41
ity continues to be valued, where is the interdisciplinary have traditionally been based for the most part on indirect 42
43

aaron kozbelt 143

SP_TER2_18_137-146.indd 143 2/1/11 12:01 PM

 1 evidence: artworks themselves (as in Livingstone’s Mona Lisa
2 example),24 case studies of neurologically impaired artists
3 or savants (as in Zaidel’s book), or non-artists’ performance
4 on art-related tasks.25 The dearth of direct examinations of
5 artists’ performance on perceptual, cognitive, and artistic
6 tasks might well give a distorted or at least incomplete
7 view of their processes and abilities. More recent research,
8 though, has examined the nature of artists’ visual percep-
9 tion, attention, and cognition, and their relation to drawing
10 performance. Such research can be overtly interdisciplinary
11 in a balanced way, drawing inspiration from artists’ and art
12 historians’ accounts of skilled drawing and testing falsifiable
13 hypotheses using standard laboratory methods in psychol-
14 ogy, while being informed by the relevant neuroscience
15 literature.26
16 In some respects, scientific psychology has a long way
17 to go. Despite a large literature on creativity, there is a
18 paucity of rigorous general theories and informative psycho-
19 logical models of the creative process, which would certainly
20 be relevant to neuroaesthetics.27 Measurement of many con-
21 structs related to aesthetics, creativity, and the arts—both
22 in the lab and in the world—also needs improvement. The
23 development of psychological theories of emotion, of the
24 nature of aesthetic appreciation, and of the social factors
25 underlying creativity judgments, would also benefit neu-
26 roaesthetics by providing a richer contextualization of the
27 nature of creativity and aesthetics at many levels—including
28 that of neural substrates.
29 Some conceptual issues might only be resolvable
30 though a thoroughgoing interdisciplinary approach, for
31 instance, distinguishing value-laden aspects of aesthetic pro-
32 ductivity. What distinguishes truly great art (or literature
33 or music) from that which is merely competent? What is
34 the nature and source of such judgments? To what extent
35 are these socially constructed, as opposed to being based
36 on objective features? One aspect of this problem is that
37 aesthetic preferences in the general population often differ
38 from those trained in the arts.28 Since expertise facilitates
39 creativity in any complex domain, it is important to extend
40 research to actual artists—so that a theory of neuroaesthetics
41 is not constructed solely upon a foundation of naïve college
42 sophomores receiving credit for experiment participation.
43
144 evolutionary aesthetics
SP_TER2_18_137-146.indd 144
Consider, for instance, that the clarity or processing fluency
of artworks has been postulated as a key aspect of positive
aesthetic experience; others have argued that its exact oppo-
site, perceptual ambiguity, undergirds aesthetic responses.29
Compared to non-artists, art-trained persons may be better
able to appreciate perceptual ambiguity. This problem illus-
trates limitations in the explanatory power of a nomothetic
basic-mechanisms approach.
Linking aesthetic preference, judgment, and experi-
ence to evolutionary theory continues to present a major
challenge. We particularly need better linkages between neu-
roaesthetics findings and the possible adaptive functions of
art. Meeting that challenge will require a more fine-tuned
understanding of the evolutionary pressures undergirding
human artistry.
It is an exciting time to do neuroaesthetics. Researchers
have produced a critical mass of reasonably well-established
findings, but with most of the story yet to come—hopefully.
In the meantime, as challenging as the subject matter is in
itself, the bigger challenge is to achieve integration among
the domains contributing to neuroaesthetics. By realizing
such an integration, neuroaesthetics would also, with only
apparent paradox, become a freestanding and truly inter-
disciplinary subject. We shall see soon enough whether the
time for this achievement is finally ripe.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Berlyne, Daniel E. Aesthetics and Psychobiology. East Norwalk, CT:
Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1971.
Boyd, Brian. On the Origin of Stories: Evolution, Cognition, and Fiction.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2009.
Chenier, Troy, and Piotr Winkielman. “The Origins of Aesthetics
Pleasure: Processing Fluency and Affect in Judgment, Body,
and the Brain.” In Neuroaesthetics, edited by Martin Skov and
Oshin Vartanian, 275–85. Amityville, NY: Baywood, 2009.
Cohen, Dale J., and Susan M. Bennett. “Why Can’t Most People
Draw What They See?” Journal of Experimental Psychology:
Human Perception and Performance 23 (1997): 609–21.
Currie, Gregory. “Aesthetics and Cognitive Science.” In The Oxford
Handbook of Aesthetics, edited by Jerrold Levinson, 706–21.
New York: Oxford University Press, 2003.
Dissanayake, Ellen. “What Art Is and What Art Does: An Overview
of Contemporary Evolutionary Hypotheses.” In Evolutionary
2/1/11 12:01 PM
 and Neurocognitive Approaches to Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Pinker, Steven. How the Mind Works. New York: Norton, 1997. 1
Arts, edited by Colin Martindale, Paul Locher, and Vladimir Ramachandran, V. S., and William Hirstein. “The Science of Art: 2
M. Petrov, 1–14. Amityville, NY: Baywood, 2007. A Neurological Theory of Aesthetic Experience.” Journal of 3
Dutton, Denis. The Art Instinct: Beauty, Pleasure and Human Evolu- Consciousness Studies 6 (1999): 15–51. 4
tion. New York: Oxford University Press, 2009. Runco, Mark A. Creativity: Theories and Themes: Research, Develop-
5
Eysenck, Hans J. Genius: The Natural History of Creativity. Cam- ment, and Practice. New York: Academic Press, 2007.
6
bridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995. Sawyer, R. Keith. Explaining Creativity: The Science of Human Innova-
Fechner, Gustav Theodor. Vorschule der Aesthetik [Experimental Aes- tion. New York: Oxford University Press, 2006. 7
thetics]. Leipzig: Breitkopf and Härtel, 1876. Simonton, Dean Keith. Origins of Genius: Darwinian Perspectives on 8
Gardner, Howard. Creating Minds. New York: Basic Books, 1993. Creativity. New York: Oxford University Press, 1999. 9
Halsey, Richard Sweeney. Classical Music Recordings for Home and Skov, Martin, and Oshin Vartanian. “Introduction: What Is Neu- 10
Library. Chicago: American Library Association, 1976. roaesthetics?” In Neuroaesthetics, edited by Martin Skov and 11
Hekkert, Paul, and Piet C. W. van Wieringen. “Beauty in the Eye Oshin Vartanian, 1–8. Amityville, NY: Baywood, 2009. 12
of Expert and Nonexpert Beholders: A Study in the Appraisal Spivey, Nigel. How Art Made the World: A Journey to the Origins of 13
of Art.” American Journal of Psychology 109 (1996): 389–407. Human Creativity. New York: Basic Books, 2005. 14
Kounios, John, Jennifer L. Frymiare, Edward M. Bowden, Jessica Wilson, Edward O. Consilience: The Unity of Knowledge. New York: 15
I. Fleck, Karuna Subramaniam, Todd B. Parrish, and Mark Vintage, 1999.
16
Jung-Beeman. “The Prepared Mind: Neural Activity Prior to Zeki, Semir. Inner Vision: An Exploration of Art and the Brain. New
17
Problem Presentation Predicts Subsequent Solution by Sud- York: Oxford University Press, 1999.
den Insight.” Psychological Science 17 (2006): 882–90. ——. “The Neurology of Ambiguity.” In The Artful Mind: 18
Kozbelt, Aaron. “Michelangelo.” In Encyclopedia of Creativity, edited Cognitive Science and the Riddle of Human Creativity, edited by 19
by Mark A. Runco and Steven Pritzker. 2nd ed. San Diego, Mark Turner, 243–70. New York: Oxford University Press, 20
CA: Elsevier, forthcoming. 2006. 21
———. “Ontogenetic Heterochrony and the Creative Process in 22
Visual Art: A Précis.” Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the NOTES 23
Arts 3 (2009): 35–37. 24
———. “Theories of Creativity.” In Encyclopedia of Creativity, 1. See, e.g., Zeki, Inner Vision; Livingstone, Vision and Art; 25
edited by Mark A. Runco and Steven Pritzker. 2nd ed. San Ramachandran and Hirstein, “Science of Art.” 26
Diego, CA: Elsevier, forthcoming. 2. See, respectively, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroaes-
27
———, and William P. Seeley. “Integrating Art Historical, Psycho- thetics; http://www.neuroesthetics.org/; and http://profzeki.blog
28
logical, and Neuroscientific Explanations of Artists’ Advantages spot.com/.
in Drawing and Perception.” Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, 3. Skov and Vartanian, “Introduction,” 3. 29
and the Arts 1 (2007): 80–90. 4. For a historical overview of philosophical discussions, see 30
Latto, Richard. “The Brain of the Beholder.” In The Artful Eye, Levinson, Oxford Handbook. 31
edited by Richard L. Gregory, John Harris, Priscilla Heard, 5. Fechner, Experimental Aesthetics. 32
and David Rose, 66–94. New York: Oxford University Press, 6. Berlyne, Aesthetics and Psychobiology. 33
1995. 7. For a review, see Martindale, “Recent Trends.” 34
Levinson, Jerrold, ed. The Oxford Handbook of Aesthetics. New York: 8. Wilson, Consilience. 35
Oxford University Press, 2003. 9. Latto, Beholder, 68. 36
Livingstone, Margaret. Vision and Art: The Biology of Seeing. New 10. Livingstone, Vision and Art. 37
York: Abrams, 2002. 11. As an exception, evolution is noted by Skov and Vartanian,
38
Martindale, Colin. “Recent Trends in the Psychological Study of “Introduction,” 3.
39
Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts.” Empirical Studies of the 12. For various and sometimes conflicting views on the evo-
Arts 25 (2007): 121–42. lutionary origins of art, see Boyd, Origin; Pinker, How the Mind 40
Miller, Geoffrey F. The Mating Mind: How Sexual Choice Shaped the Works; Miller, Mating Mind; Dissanayake, What Art Is; Dutton, Art 41
Evolution of Human Nature. New York: Anchor Books, 2000. Instinct. 42
43

aaron kozbelt 145

SP_TER2_18_137-146.indd 145 2/1/11 12:01 PM

 1 13. Currie, “Cognitive Science,” 718. 21. See, e.g., Halsey, Classical Music.
2 14. Gardner, Creating Minds. 22. Sawyer, Explaining Creativity.
3 15. See, for example, Runco, Creativity, or journals like Cre- 23. E.g., Spivey, How Art Made.
4 ativity Research Journal, Journal of Creative Behavior, or Psychology of 24. Livingstone, Vision and Art.
Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts. 25. E.g., Cohen and Bennett, “Most People Draw.”
5
16. See Kozbelt, “Theories.” 26. E.g., Kozbelt and Seeley, “Artists’ Advantages.”
6
17. E.g., Kounios et al., “Prepared Mind.” 27. Kozbelt, “Theories” and “Ontogenetic Heterochrony.”
7 18. Eysenck, Genius; Simonton, Origins of Genius. 28. E.g., Hekkert and van Wieringen, “Beauty.”
8 19. See Kozbelt, “Michelangelo.” 29. Compare Chenier and Winkielman, “Processing Fluency”
9 20. Sacks, Musicophilia, 348; Levitin, Brain on Music, 127. with Zeki, “Ambiguity.”
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43

146 evolutionary aesthetics

SP_TER2_18_137-146.indd 146 2/1/11 12:01 PM

 “Everything is this way because it got this way” . . . 1
2
and That’s Okay 3
4
5
6
7
8
9
JONATHAN GOTTSCHALL Imagine Max Gottlieb: thin, severe, haggard, and pale—growing old. A professor 10
of bacteriology at a large Midwestern university, he is counted with the world’s 11
great scientists. But his puritanical devotion to his work, his superior airs, and 12
his midnight experiments in dark labs make him the target of campus gossips, 13
who envy his accomplishments and vaguely fear them as well. Such a man is 14
Norman Brumfit, a professor of literature at the same Midwestern university. 15
Imagine him: hale and ruddy, loud and vulgar despite his great learning. Late 16
one night, at a faculty party that is “full of beer and Brumfit,” he holds forth 17
on the old subject of Gottlieb: 18
19
I’m sufficiently liberal, I should assume, toward the claims of sci- 20
ence, but with a man like Gottlieb—I’m prepared to believe that 21
he knows all about material forces, but what astounds me is that 22
such a man can be blind to the vital force that creates all others. 23
He says that knowledge is worthless unless it is proven by rows of 24
figures. Well, when one of you scientific sharks can take the genius 25
of a Ben Jonson and measure it with a yardstick, then I’ll admit 26
that we literary chaps, with our doubtless absurd belief in beauty 27
and loyalty and the world o’ dreams, are off on the wrong track!1 28
29
What is Brumfit’s problem? Why does he scoff at the very thought of 30
a scientific study of literary genius? Why, instead of thrilling to the possibil- 31
ity of revolutionary discovery, does he seem to fear it? Brumfit appears to 32
believe that communicating Jonson’s genius in numbers would vastly diminish 33
him. But why? Imagine Gottlieb bursting triumphantly from his lab waving 34
a formula or algorithm capturing Jonson’s genius. How could this addition 35
to knowledge detract from Brumfit’s experience of the plays? Brumfit reasons 36
thus: If literary genius is shown to be a determinate, measurable thing then 37
Gottlieb’s realm of “material forces” is all there is. The humanities would not 38
be an independent province shot through by a mysterious “vital force,” and 39
they would not be exempt from the materialist reductions of scientific inquiry. 40
If Jonson is quantified, the sea walls will groan and buckle and in will glide 41
42
43

jonathan gottschall 147

SP_TER2_19_147-150.indd 147 2/1/11 12:01 PM

 1 the “scientific sharks” to devour everything Brumfit holds
2 precious: beauty, loyalty, the transcendent world o’ dreams.
3 Charles Darwin was, like Gottlieb, powerfully com-
4 mitted to reductionism—studying complex wholes by ana-
5 lyzing their simpler parts. He grasped as a young man that
6 “Science consists in grouping facts so that general laws or
7 conclusions may be drawn from them.”2 He saw all of life
8 as a seamless continuum, from the most ancient and primi-
9 tive forms to the higher animals, all the way up to humans
10 and the most refined products of our highest faculties. He
11 felt that his theory, reductive to the core, could serve as a
12 basis for understanding life and everything having to do with
13 life. The famous closing sentence of The Descent of Man
14 acknowledges all of the things that are noble and good in
15 humans, but continues, “we must, however, acknowledge
16 [that] Man still bears in his bodily frame the indelible stamp
17 of his lowly origin.”3 Epochal. Scandalous. But still too tame.
18 For Darwin’s most dangerous idea in The Descent of Man is
19 this: the stamp of lowly origin is just as indelibly impressed
20 on our brains and minds as it is on our bodies.
21 It was in The Descent of Man that Darwin clearly
22 framed visual art, music, poetry, and religion as proper sub-
23 jects for natural history, as intricate evolutionary puzzles.
24 For Darwin, solving these puzzles was akin in difficulty
25 and importance to showing how bodily “organs of extreme
26 perfection” like the human eye, or “mental organs” like the
27 moral sense, emerged through slow gradation. How could
28 the thrifty processes of natural selection allow the sheer
29 expense of art and ritual? How did the primordial and
30 universal human passions for song, dance, ornamentation,
31 and fantastic imaginary narratives evolve? Darwin under-
32 stood that the natural history of humans would never be
33 complete until it could account for the subject matter of
34 the humanities. And subsequent thinkers have argued, E. O.
35 Wilson foremost among them, that the inverse is equally
36 true: understanding in the humanities will be incomplete
37 until it is linked to understanding in natural history.4
38 But even now, 140 years after the publication of The
39 Descent of Man, humanists are reluctant to play a role in the
40 Darwinian revolution that is all but complete in biology, and
41 well under way in the social sciences. Other writers, puz-
42 zling over this, have usually blamed politics: many modern
43
148 evolutionary aesthetics
SP_TER2_19_147-150.indd 148
humanists have maligned the new Darwinism in the social
sciences as a thinly veiled justification for sociopolitical
inequality. But the resistance to Darwinism in the humani-
ties runs deeper than politics. Many humanities scholars
see Darwinism as a dire existential threat. For instance, the
distinguished literary scholar Eugene Goodheart argues that
a Darwinized humanities would be a disaster. In his view,
everything vital and special about the humanities would be
“evaporated” and “impoverished”—all the treasures would
be vandalized, all the monuments desecrated.5 To preserve
the humanities from the scientific sharks, Goodheart, like
Brumfit, argues for the existence of a big tear in the fab-
ric of intellectual space. According to Goodheart, the sheer
complexity of art, philosophy, and religion mean that the
humanities are in some fundamental sense cut off from the
sciences. The sciences and humanities constitute separate,
non-overlapping magisteria—the theories, methods, and
attitudes of the one are radically unsuited to the other.
Goodheart has no quarrel with Darwinian reduction-
ism in the natural or social sciences, his “concern is with its
application in the humanities.”6 But why are the humanities
exempt? Where is the encompassing moat that reduction-
ism can’t cross, and what is it filled with? Magic stuff? Vital
essence? In answer to such questions, all Goodheart can do
is state his intuition that the subject matter of the humanities
is, in his own words, “irreducibly complex.”7 But this is as
lame an argument for limiting Darwinism in the humanities
as it is for limiting Darwinism in biology. Goodheart is no
creationist, and neither, almost certainly, is the radical Nor-
man Brumfit. But they both demand a special dispensation for
the humanities: they should be respected as a last refuge of
the transcendent, the immaterial, the irreducibly complex.
In my view, Goodheart makes a simple intellectual
error, one that forces him to resist scientific incursion into
the humanities on quasi-spiritual grounds. And he is not
alone. Humanists frequently use the word reductionism invec-
tively because they make the same elementary mistake. They
confuse two things that sound a lot alike but have no neces-
sary relationship. They conflate a term of scientific jargon,
reduction, with a different meaning of the word reduction:
to lessen, to lower, to diminish. For them, a reductionist
approach crudely imposes the illusion of simplicity on the
2/1/11 12:01 PM
 fact of complexity; it almost necessarily diminishes beauty, his science only deepens it. One early reviewer understood 1
variety, and wonder. this perfectly, and praised Darwin not only for the quality 2
They have things backward. The warrant for reduc- of his science, but also for the power of his poetry: 3
tionism was well expressed by the biologist D’Arcy Thomp- 4
son in his classic On Growth and Form, “Everything is this In reading this extraordinary work one which is 5
way because it got this way.”8 This is true of humanities in every way worthy of the great reputation of 6
subject matter too. There was no special creation event. its author the words of Shelley, as descriptive of 7
Everything got to be the way it is through a process of poetry, continually recurred to mind. “Poetry,” 8
gradation. Showing why this is a cause for celebration and says the most eloquent of modern poets, “strips 9
hope, not fear and despair, is the final objective of this essay. the veil of familiarity from the world, and lays 10
Nowhere is the cause for hope greater than in the bare the hidden and concealed beauties which 11
works of Darwin himself. In a much-discussed passage of his are the spirits of its forms.” . . . That genius, like 12
autobiography, he wrote that he had gradually transformed poetry, also strips the veil of familiarity from the 13
his mind into a reduction machine: he would feed it heaps objects of its pursuit, and lays bare the concealed 14
of disordered data and the machine would sort it, thresh beauties which are the spirits of their forms, 15
it, and grind out general laws and principles. He regretted is demonstrated in no ordinary manner by the 16
that the hypertrophy in one center of his brain had caused book under notice.12 17
severe atrophy in another: it had ruined his delight in poetry 18
(though he still loved novels very much).9 This passage has Or consider a more famous example. The final para- 19
frequently been used to support a binary opposition: One graph of The Origin of Species invites us to contemplate an 20
can either delight in beautiful things or try to understand ordinary “entangled bank.” Then Darwin composes a prose 21
them by cutting them into parts; one can’t do both. But poem about it, one of the loveliest paragraphs in the history 22
other scholars have protested that commentators have made of scientific discourse. Through Darwin’s eyes, we see that 23
too much of this passage, and have pointed out that Dar- a reduction of life to the laws of selection does not lessen 24
win kept up a steady diet of humane reading throughout its poetry. On the contrary, there is a new “grandeur in 25
his life.10 this view of life,” even in this view of a humble backyard 26
I’m with them. In fact, a good case can be made that ecosystem: 27
Darwin’s reductionism enhanced his appreciation of beauty. 28
Consider his technical monograph, The Various Contrivances It is interesting to contemplate an entangled 29
by Which Orchids Are Fertilised by Insects (1862), a masterpiece bank, clothed with many plants of many kinds, 30
of scientific reductionism and a watershed in the science with birds singing on the bushes, with various 31
of botany. Darwin concludes that most of the “perfect” and insects flitting about, and with worms crawling 32
“beautiful” features of the orchid are adapted to a single end: through the damp earth, and to reflect that these 33
to promote “fertilisation of flowers with pollen brought by elaborately constructed forms, so different from 34
insects from a distinct plant.”11 But none of Darwin’s long each other, and dependent on each other in 35
labors—cutting up flowers, examining their minutest struc- so complex a manner, have all been produced 36
tural characters, submitting the data to theoretical reduc- by laws acting around us. . . . Thus, from the 37
tion—detracted from the beauty of orchids. Ignorance doesn’t war of nature, from famine and death, the most 38
make orchids more beautiful. Flowers were not more beautiful exalted object which we are capable of con- 39
when natural theologians thought they were designed to ceiving, namely, the production of the higher 40
gladden men’s eyes. On the contrary, all of the orchid’s animals, directly follows. There is grandeur in 41
beauty is preserved for the reader of Darwin’s monograph— this view of life, with its several powers, having 42
43

jonathan gottschall 149

SP_TER2_19_147-150.indd 149 2/1/11 12:01 PM

 1 been originally breathed into a few forms or landscapes, or novels for study, contemplation, or awestruck
2 into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone celebration is still there. A proper process of reduction does
3 cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, not diminish. It adds.
4 from so simple a beginning endless forms most
5 beautiful and most wonderful have been, and BIBLIOGRAPHY
6 are being, evolved.13 Darwin, Charles. The Autobiography of Charles Darwin. New York:
7 Norton, 1958. First published in 1877.
8 So here is what a hypothetical reductionist (let’s give ———. The Descent of Man. New York: Prometheus Books, 1998.
9 him a background in neuroscience) might say about Brumfit First published in 1871.
10 and Gottlieb: first off, they are not real people; they are liter- ———. On the Origin of Species. Peterborough, Ontario: Broadview
11 ary characters. They are remnant traces of chemical reactions Press, 2003. First published in 1859.
12 and streaks of neuronal lightning in a novelist’s brain. The ———. On the Various Contrivances by Which Orchids Are Fertilised
13 novelist, Sinclair Lewis, managed to depict this brain activity by Insects. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1984. First
14 as organized streaks of ink on paper and—through a still published in 1862.
15 poorly understood process—the dead artist still manages to Goodheart, Eugene. Darwinian Misadventures in the Humanities. New
Brunswick, NJ: Transaction, 2007.
16 conjure something like the very same patterns of chemistry
Lewis, Sinclair. Arrowsmith. New York: Signet Classics, 1998. First
17 and electricity in the live brains of Arrowsmith’s readers. Or published in 1925.
18 if the imagined reductionist is steeped in Darwinism, she Stevens, Robert, L. “Darwin’s Humane Reading: The Anaesthetic
19 might note that Arrowsmith was written by a primate, for Man Reconsidered.” Victorian Studies 26 (1982): 51–63.
20 primates, about primates—great apes, in fact. She might Tegetmeier, W. B. “Darwin on Orchids.” Register of Facts and Occur-
21 suggest that our understanding of Brumfit and Gottlieb’s rences Relating to Literature, the Sciences, and the Arts (August
22 rivalry will be more complete if we recall that male status 1862): 38–39.
23 rivalry is highly typical of their biological order and family. Thompson, D’Arcy. On Growth and Form. New York: Dover, 1992.
24 For the sake of illustration, I have chosen very simple reduc- First published in 1917.
25 tions. But I think they still capture a portion of the truth. Wilson, E. O. Consilience: The Unity of Knowledge. New York: Knopf,
26 And note that, for all of their simplicity, neither reduction 1998.
27 is very greedy. Neither reduction suggests, as Gottlieb does, NOTES
28 that all knowledge is useless unless proven by rows of figures.
29 Neither implies that the application of neurology or prima- 1. Lewis, Arrowsmith, 8.
30 tology exhausts discussion and renders all other perspectives 2. Darwin, Autobiography, 70.
31 on Arrowsmith obsolete. In fact, both reductions are in every 3. Darwin, Descent, 643.
32 way compatible with each other and with valid knowledge 4. Wilson, Consilience.
5. Goodheart, Darwinian Misadventures, 22, 19.
33 gathered at different explanatory levels. In short, neither
6. Goodheart, Darwinian Misadventures, 6.
34 reduction diminishes the psychological, sociological, histori- 7. Goodheart, Darwinian Misadventures, 23.
35 cal, or aesthetic significance of Lewis’s novel not by a jot. 8. Thompson, Growth, 4.
36 And that’s my point. Reduction takes away just one 9. Darwin, Autobiography, 54.
37 thing: the intellectual warrant for belief in the transcen- 10. Stevens, “Darwin’s Humane Reading.”
38 dent—for vital forces and irreducible complexity. And per- 11. Darwin, Various Contrivances, 1.
39 haps humanists can be forgiven for mourning some loss 12. Tegetmeier, “Darwin,” 38.
40 of mystery. But whatever else was available in orchids, or 13. Darwin, Origin, 398.
41
42
43

150 evolutionary aesthetics

SP_TER2_19_147-150.indd 150 2/1/11 12:01 PM

 Darwinian Ceremonies 1
2
3
4
Is the Rhetoric of Praise and Blame Adaptive? 5
6
7
8
9
BRET A. RAPPAPORT Explanation is not achieved by description of patterns of regularity, no 10
matter how meticulous and adequate, nor by replacing description by other 11
abstractions congruent with it, but by exhibiting what makes the pattern, 12
i.e. certain processes. 13
—Fredrik Barth, Political Leadership among Swat Pathans 14
(quoted in Chase, “Classical Conception”) 15
16
17
MOVE OVER ARISTOTLE 18
19
For centuries debate has raged about the best lens through which to view 20
rhetoric—that of the Sophists, Plato, Aristotle, Isocrates, Cicero, or Quintilian. 21
Well, Greeks and Romans, make room on the battlefield for Darwin. Plausible 22
arguments have been made for the adaptive origins of ubiquitous behaviors 23
such as mate selection, group cooperation, law, language, music, and literature. 24
Epideictic rhetoric—the ceremonial oratory of praise and blame that instills and 25
strengthens cultural values and mores—is also universal. We all love praise and 26
dread blame. Can we infer that epideictic rhetoric, also, is driven by natural 27
selection? 28
The rhetoric of praise includes great eulogies such as Gorgias’ Encomium 29
of Helen and soaring speeches such as President Obama’s address in Egypt 30
on the state of relations between the West and Islam. The rhetoric of blame 31
includes condemnations and roasts and apologies such as celebrity sex mea culpas 32
provided by Bill Clinton and Tiger Woods, as well as statements of a nation’s 33
collective remorse, such as former president Bush’s 2003 speech at Goree Island, 34
Senegal, apologizing for slavery, and the 2009 apology of Japanese ambassador to 35
the United States Ichiro Fujisaki offered to the sixty-fourth and final reunion 36
of Bataan Death March survivors. 37
Epideictic rhetoric is both ancient and widespread, but is it an adaptive 38
behavior? Darwin suggests that it might be: 39
40
Primeval man, at a very remote period, was influenced by the 41
praise and blame of his fellows. It is obvious, that the members 42
43

bret a. rappaport 151

SP_TER2_20_151-155.indd 151 2/1/11 12:01 PM

 1 of the same tribe would approve of conduct IT’S NOT BULLSHIT
2 which appeared to them to be for the general
3 good, and would reprobate that which appeared Some critics regard epideictic rhetoric as “bullshit” and
4 evil. To do good unto others—to do unto oth- reject it as “outmoded, sentimental, ideological, patriarchal,
5 ers as ye would they should do unto you—is imperialist, irrelevant and fatuous.”4 They’re wrong. Epide-
6 the foundation-stone of morality. It is, therefore, ictic rhetoric is ubiquitous and serves a central function
7 hardly possible to exaggerate the importance in humans’ success as a species. Epideictic rhetoric issues a
8 during rude times of the love of praise and the call to fellowship—what ancient rhetoricians called sensus
9 dread of blame. A man who was not impelled communis—a feeling of community. Practitioners of epideic-
10 by any deep, instinctive feeling, to sacrifice his tic rhetoric use vivid language to exemplify and model the
11 life for the good of others, yet was roused to praiseworthy and blameworthy.5 Ideally, the speaker’s praise
12 such actions by a sense of glory, would by his of virtuous acts moves the audience first to admiration and
13 example excite the same wish for glory in oth- then to emulation. As a result, “the value system of one
14 er men, and would strengthen by exercise the generation is passed down to the next.”6
15 noble feeling of admiration. He might thus do In its religious application, epideictic rhetoric memori-
16 far more good to his tribe than by begetting alizes the sacred for the flock. Epideictic speeches at secular
17 offspring with a tendency to inherit his own and sectarian events such as weddings, birthday parties, bar
18 high character.1 mitzvahs, quinceañera, and ritualistic circumcisions all rein-
19 force societal bonds and values. This is not new. Speeches
20 Abbott too notes that epideictic rhetoric has displayed played a prominent role in the construction and maintenance
21 incredible durability and adaptability due, in part, to “its of the Greek city-state. The Iroquois “Ritual of Condolence”
22 fundamental association with human behavior.”2 And Ken- and the ritual oratory of the Southwestern Pima and Papagos
23 nedy touches briefly on the evolutionary origins of rhetoric: are epideictic. The Aztec “speeches of the elders”—known as
24 huehuetlatolli—are the resort to ethical and pathetical means
25 Ultimately, what we call “rhetoric” can be of persuasion to transmit ancient wisdom. Kennedy (New
26 traced back to the natural instinct to survive History, 108) concludes that “rhetoric among the Indians,
27 and control our environment and influence the as in other traditional societies, was a largely conservative,
28 action of others in what seems the best interest defensive force in transmitting and preserving independence,
29 of ourselves, our families, our social and political way of life, and values of the cultures.”
30 groups, and our descendents.3 Animal behavior lends credence to the hypothesis that
31 adaptive processes in the mammalian brain might presage
32 Neither Abbott nor Kennedy nor Darwin explores this idea the production and effectiveness of certain sounds associated
33 further. We should. with certain types of individuals that convey group-centric
34 The adaptive origins of religion, elder respect, and values. Kennedy points to the rhetorical nonhuman vocal-
35 prestige (and perhaps other behaviors as well) support the izations of bugling elk and deer during rut, alarm calls of
36 hypothesis that the capacity to acquire and use epideictic monkeys when danger is near, and other forms of “monkey
37 rhetoric, central to all of them, is—at least in part—adap- politics” (New History, 21). Bottlenose dolphins develop indi-
38 tive. By fostering values that enhance cooperation within vidually distinctive signature whistles used to maintain group
39 a group and repress the urge to obtain selfish short-term cohesion.7 Aged female Campbell’s monkeys, though signifi-
40 reward, creating and processing the rhetoric of praise and cantly less “loquacious” than their younger adult counter-
41 blame helped (and helps) humans adapt and meet challenges parts, elicit many more responses to their calls.8 Similarly, a
42 to survival and reproduction. recent study of elephants in Kenya established that matri-
43

152 evolutionary aesthetics

SP_TER2_20_151-155.indd 152 2/1/11 12:01 PM

 archs are repositories of social knowledge and, specifically, cies, and other species, is often associated with higher repro- 1
a protective behavior known as “bunching.” Researchers ductive success and is thus adaptive. Maybe this is true 2
note that the mechanism by which these elder elephant in humans too. Al Capone famously said, “You get much 3
females orchestrate the change in behavior of the herd is further with a kind word and a gun than you can with a 4
a subtle acoustic or olfactory cue—what Homo sapiens call kind word alone.” Prestige, in contrast to dominance, is status 5
“rhetoric.”9 If age matters among monkeys vocalizing and not conferred by agonism but rather driven by success bias— 6
elephants trumpeting, we are close to the notion of ethos individuals preferentially imitating successful cultural models. 7
even in animals. It is perhaps not surprising then that some Evolution creates a success bias. Here’s how. Individu- 8
credit “Corax” (the Crow) as ancient rhetoric’s inventor.10 als vary in skill, strategy, and preference in ways that affect 9
(The very notion of an inventor is antithetical to the entire fitness, and at least some components of these differences 10
hypothesis of evolution through mutation and natural selec- can be acquired through cultural learning. Therefore, natural 11
tion, and a better term might be discovered.) selection operates to cause individuals to learn preferentially 12
Religion uses epideictic rhetoric to help create and from more successful individuals.16 The greater the variation 13
maintain tradition, a central feature of the sectarian. Con- in acquired skills among individuals, and the more diffi- 14
sider ritual circumcision with its associated sermons and cult those skills are to acquire, the greater the evolutionary 15
prayers, a religious practice first used in Ancient Egypt and imperative to focus and imitate the most skilled individu- 16
still part of many religions.11 Epideictic rhetoric serves to als. Humans succeed in large part because their descen- 17
create a similar rhetorical experience for all who attend such dants do not have to reinvent the wheel. Natural selection 18
ceremonies, linking them each together and all with the favors improving learning efficiencies, which include the 19
past. The circumcision is not really about the baby boy any “student’s” ability to identify and preferentially copy mod- 20
more than a funeral is for the departed. Rather, “through els that possess better-than-average information. Individuals 21
shared rituals and common terms rhetors develop piety in seek out and pay deference to highly skilled individuals in 22
audience members who come to see themselves as part of return for access. Persons with perceived skills are, therefore, 23
a larger system.”12 preferred and held in esteem. This is the essence of prestige. 24
Religion helps people cope with catastrophe.13 In But the perception of prestige requires communica- 25
1997 the Red River Valley of North Dakota flooded and tion of the skills that confer it. Epideictic rhetoric relies 26
as the waters rose epideictic rhetoric flowed from the lips heavily on the prestige of the rhetorician, and in turn the 27
of leaders to soothe the suffering. After studying responses rhetoric fosters the rhetorician’s prestige. This feedback loop 28
to the flood and subsequent fires, Jeff Brand concluded that of prestige and epideictic rhetoric depends not just on verbal 29
“church leaders and other members of the community used skill but on the rhetorician’s ability to tap into the ethos 30
religious messages to provide psychological support to the of the tribe. Epideictic rhetoricians are able to convince 31
victims of the flood, to reinforce religious beliefs, and to the audience because they express sentiments the audience 32
help strengthen and build the community.”14 members already hold, and because the rhetorician is per- 33
If religion is adaptive—and there is strong evidence ceived as having the experience and insight that make his 34
that it is—and if epideictic rhetoric is central to religion, statements possible (“Ethos,” 123). 35
then the capacity to create and be affected by epideictic Prestige applies not only to persons, but also to nations. 36
rhetoric might itself have an adaptive component.15 Standing on the deck of the USS Missouri, General Douglas 37
MacArthur accepted Japan’s surrender and called on “salient 38
PRESTIGE ceremonial oratory,” to convey his nation’s message. With 39
the Cold War imminent, “the prestige of the Western World 40
Individual status within a group is a function of either [hung] in the balance.”17 Flanked by Admirals Nimitz and 41
dominance or prestige. Dominance in nonhuman ape spe- Halsey, five stars clasped to his shirt collar, MacArthur 42
43

bret a. rappaport 153

SP_TER2_20_151-155.indd 153 2/1/11 12:01 PM

 1 stepped to the microphone. His physically assembled audi-
2 ence was sailors on the deck, and the officers aligned aside
3 the signing table. His target audience, however, was the
4 world’s citizens. In the speech, which can be watched today
5 on YouTube, MacArthur employs epideictic rhetoric to help
6 fashion the prestige the United States was going to need in
7 the Cold War. His address will serve for our one extended
8 instance of epideictic rhetoric:
9 to the creation, communication, and continuation of prestige
10 Today the guns are silent. A great tragedy has
11 ended. A great victory has been won.
12 As I look back upon the long, tortu-
13 ous trail from those grim days of Bataan and
14 Corregidor, when an entire world lived in fear,
15 when democracy was on the defensive every-
16 where, when modern civilization trembled in
17 the balance, I thank a merciful God that he has
18 given us the faith, the courage and the power
19 from which to mold victory. We have known
20 the bitterness of defeat and the exultation of
21 triumph, and from both we have learned there
22 can be no turning back. We must go forward to
23 preserve in peace what we won in war.
24 A new era is upon us. Even the lesson of
25 victory itself brings with it profound concern,
26 both for our future security and the survival
27 of civilization. The destructiveness of the war
28 potential, through progressive advances in scien-
29 tific discovery, has in fact now reached a point
30 which revises the traditional concepts of war.
31 Men since the beginning of time have
32 sought peace. . . . Military alliances, balances
33 of power, leagues of nations, all in turn failed,
34 leaving the only path to be by way of the cru-
35 cible of war. We have had our last chance. If
36 we do not now devise some greater and more
37 equitable system, Armageddon will be at our
38 door. The problem basically is theological and
39 involves a spiritual recrudescence and improve-
40 ment of human character that will synchronize
41 with our almost matchless advances in science,
42 art, literature and all material and cultural devel-
43
154 evolutionary aesthetics
SP_TER2_20_151-155.indd 154
opment of the past two thousand years. It must
be of the spirit if we are to save the flesh.18
This speech set the tone for the nation building and alli-
ance between the United States and Japan. It set forth and
made clear the centrality of fundamental cultural values as
the Cold War began. It was epideictic.
If prestige is adaptive, and epideictic rhetoric central
of both individuals and groups, then the capacity to cre-
ate and the capacity to be affected by epideictic rhetoric
might itself be adaptive. It seems that Darwin thus might
well deserve a seat alongside Aristotle, Cicero, and the other
rhetorician theoreticians.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Abbott, Don Paul. “The Ancient Word: Rhetoric in Aztec Culture.”
Rhetorica 5 (1987): 251–64.
Barth, Fredrik. Political Leadership among Swat Pathans. London: Berg
Publishers, 1965.
Brand, Jeffrey D. “Religious Discourse in Times of Crisis: Declar-
ing Victory after the Grand Forks Flood of 1997.” North
Dakota Journal of Speech and Theater 12 (1999): 65–72.
Chase, J. Richard. “The Classical Conception of Epideictic.” Quar-
terly Journal of Speech 47 (1961): 293–300.
Darwin, Charles. The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex.
1871. http://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/etext00/dscmn10.txt.
Duffy, Bernard K., and Ronald H. Carpenter. Douglas MacArthur:
Warrior as Wordsmith. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1997.
Henrich, Joseph, and Richard McElreath. “The Evolution of Cul-
tural Evolution.” Evolutionary Anthropology 12 (2003): 123–35.
Immerman, Ronald, and Wade MacKey. “A Biocultural Analysis of
Circumcision.” Social Biology 44 (1976): 265–75.
Janik, Vincent M. “Whistle Matching in Wild Bottlenose Dolphins
(Tursiops truncatus).” Science 289 (2000): 1355–57.
Kennedy, George Alexander. A New History of Classical Rhetoric:
An Extensive Revision and Abridgement of “The Art of Persua-
sion in Greece.” “The Art of Rhetoric in the Roman World” and
“Greek Rhetoric under Christian Emperors” with Additional Dis-
cussion of Late Latin Rhetoric. Princeton: Princeton University
Press, 1994.
Lemasson, Alban, Enora Gandon, and Martine Hausberger. “Atten-
tion to Elders’ Voice in Non-human Primates.” Biology Letters,
January 6, 2010.
2/1/11 12:01 PM
 Mackin, James A., Jr. “Schismogenesis and Community: Pericles’ NOTES 1
Funeral Oration.” Quarterly Journal of Speech 75 (1991): 251–62. 2
McComb, Karen, Cynthia Moss, Sarah M. Durant, Lucy Baker, and 1. Darwin, Descent of Man, 500. 3
Soila Sayiale. “Matriarchs as Repositories of Social Knowledge 2. Abbott, “Ancient Word,” 262. 4
in African Elephants.” Science 292 (2001): 491–94. 3. Kennedy, New History, 7; hereafter cited parenthetically 5
McCormick, Rob. “Epideictic Rhetoric: Renewing Vision, Vibe as New History.
6
and Values.” Conference Report (2009). http://www.waalc.org. 4. McCormick, “Epideictic Rhetoric,” 16–17.
au/09conf/docs/12EpideicticRhetoric.pdf (accessed July 27, 7
5. Sheard, “Public Value.”
2010). 6. Sullivan, “Ethos,” 115; hereafter cited parenthetically as 8
Newsreel of the Surrender Ceremony on Board the USS Missouri in “Ethos.” 9
Tokyo Bay on September 2, 1945. http://www.angelfire.com/ 7. Janik, “Whistle Matching.” 10
ak2/intelligencerreport/surrender.html (accessed July 27, 2010). 8. Lemasson, Gandon, and Hausberger, “Attention.” 11
Richerson, Peter J., and Robert Boyd. “Built for Speed, Not for 9. McComb et al., “Matriarchs.” 12
Comfort: Darwinian Theory and Human Culture.” History and 10. Wardy, Birth of Rhetoric, 3. 13
Philosophy of the Life Sciences 23 (2001): 425–65. 11. Immerman and MacKey, “Biocultural Analysis.” 14
Sheard, C. M. “The Public Value of Epideictic Rhetoric.” College 12. Mackin, “Schismogenesis,” 252 (quoted in Brand, “Reli- 15
English 58 (1996): 765–94. gious Discourse”). 16
Stewart, C. J. (1965). “The Dallas Pulpit and the Kennedy Assas- 13. Stewart, “Dallas Pulpit,” 256.
17
sination.” Communication Studies 26 (1965): 255–61. 14. Brand, “Religious Discourse,” 65.
Sullivan, Dale L. “The Ethos of Epideictic Encounter.” Philosophy 18
15. For arguments on the adaptive nature of religion,
and Rhetoric 26 (1993): 113–33. see Richerson and Boyd, “Built for Speed”; Wilson, Darwin’s 19
Wardy, Robert. The Birth of Rhetoric: Gorgias, Plato and Their Suc- Cathedral. 20
cessors. New York: Routledge, 1998. 16. Henrich and McElreath, “Cultural Evolution.” 21
Wilson, David Sloan. Darwin’s Cathedral: Evolution, Religion, and the 17. Duffy and Carpenter, Douglas MacArthur, 6, 93. 22
Nature of Society. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2003. 18. Newsreel. 23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43

bret a. rappaport 155

SP_TER2_20_151-155.indd 155 2/1/11 12:01 PM

 1 On Evolutionary Computer-Generated Art
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10 PENOUSAL MACHADO Many people have a distorted view of Artificial Intelligence (AI). As Astro
11 JUAN ROMERO Teller observes, for most people “Artificial Intelligence is the science of how
12 to get machines to do the things they do in the movies.”1 AI researchers often
13 have to deal with misconceptions created by the doomsday scenarios portrayed
14 in movies such as the 1983 classic War Games or the Terminator series. These
15 movies provoke fear. Others present a romantic view of AI. For instance, the
16 1984 movie Electric Dreams is about a boy who bought a computer and acci-
17 dentally spilled a beverage on it. As a consequence, the computer developed
18 AI. Listening to the girl next door practicing the cello, it learned how to play
19 and compose music, fell in love with the girl, tried to kill its owner, and ended
20 up committing suicide.
21 In reality, since its inception, AI research has given considerable empha-
22 sis to logic, reasoning, problem solving, planning, natural language processing,
23 expert systems, chess, et cetera. In several tasks requiring intelligence, state-of-
24 the-art AI systems are now able to attain human competitive results or even to
25 surpass human performance. Yet, in tasks requiring creative reasoning, such as
26 art, design, music, and poetry, computers are far from reaching the accomplish-
27 ments of humans. As Dissanayake observes, art-making activities are ubiquitous,
28 have evolutionary value, and are a part of human behavior since prehistory.2
29 Creativity is often regarded as one of the most remarkable characteristics of the
30 human mind. Not surprising, then, that the search for computational “creativ-
31 ity” should be a central aspect of AI.
32 During the initial years of AI research, the main source of inspiration was
33 human intelligence. Over the years, researchers have realized that many other
34 sources of inspiration can be used. Establishing analogies with physics phenom-
35 ena gave rise to novel search methods such as Simulated Annealing,3 Hopfield
36 Networks,4 and Elastic Networks.5 Currently, there is a growing interest in
37 bio-inspired computing, an area of research that comprises techniques such as
38 Evolutionary Computation (EC), Swarm Intelligence, Ant Colony Optimiza-
39 tion, and Artificial Life.
40 Through time, evolution has created a wide variety of species adapted
41 to their environment. Some of these species—for example, humans—exhibit
42 intelligent behavior. Since evolution is the source for natural intelligence, it
43

156 evolutionary aesthetics

SP_TER2_21_156-170.indd 156 2/1/11 12:02 PM

 naturally became a source for AI. According to Darwin, the solution. Thus, a colored map where no neighbors share 1
evolution is based on two fundamental principles: selection, the same color has maximum fitness, while map-colorings 2
and reproduction with variation.6 Selection ensures that fit- that violate this constraint will be penalized proportionally 3
ter individuals are more likely to reproduce. The descendants to the number of times they violate it. 4
of these individuals inherit characteristics from the progeni- To apply EC, one must find an adequate representa- 5
tors—which implies that they tend to be fit—but they are tion. For instance, one can consider that the genotype of 6
not exact copies, which allows evolution. The reinterpreta- each individual is composed of a chromosome, represented 7
tion of Darwin’s ideas in light of Mendel’s genetics, that is, by a string, composed of n genes, where n is the number 8
neo-Darwinism, explains how characteristics are inherited of countries in the map. Genes can assume four values, rep- 9
and how and why changes occur. Natural selection occurs at resenting the color associated to the corresponding country. 10
the phenotypic level, while reproduction acts on the geno- Once the representation is chosen, one must also 11
type.7 The characteristics of the individuals are not directly define adequate genetic operators. When two progenitors 12
inherited. Instead, the genes that codify these characteris- reproduce there is a probability, for example, 70 percent, of 13
tics and those that enabled their development are inherited. recombination of their genetic code. When recombination 14
Variation results from copying errors—that is, mutations— does not occur, the genetic code of the descendants is a 15
and from the recombination of the genetic material of the copy of the progenitors’ code. For the purpose of recom- 16
progenitors. bination one could use 1-point crossover: a number (x) 17
The goal of EC research can be synthesized as fol- between 1 and n is randomly selected, and two descendants 18
lows: “How do we turn Darwin’s ideas into algorithms?”8 are generated by copying the first x genes from the first 19
Nowadays, EC comprises a wide and growing variety of parent and the remaining genes from the second (and vice 20
stochastic algorithms. In spite of this variety, they have the versa for the second individual). After this stage, the muta- 21
same main characteristics, so they can all be seen as instances tion operations take place. Each gene of the descendants 22
of a generic evolutionary algorithm (see algorithm 1). has a probability of suffering a mutation, for example, 1 23
percent. Mutation can be implemented as follows: the value 24
of that gene is replaced by a randomly chosen number 25
Algorithm 1 Generic Evolutionary Algorithm 26
between 0 and 3.
P @ generate-initial-population () One must also define a selection scheme. Tourna- 27
while termination criteria not met do evaluate (P) ment-based selection is appropriate for this problem, that 28
P’ @ select-individuals (P(t)) is, to choose a progenitor, one starts by randomly select- 29
P” @ apply-genetic-operators (P’) ing a given number of individuals (e.g., five) among the 30
P @ create-next-population (P,P’’) population, and the fittest of these individuals will be the 31
end-while progenitor. An individual may be selected more than once 32
return simulation result for reproduction. 33
Finally, one must define an initialization method, a 34
To illustrate how such an algorithm would work, we’ll replacement scheme, and a termination criterion. For the 35
look at the Four-Color Map problem, which consists in sake of simplicity one can assume that an initial popula- 36
coloring a map using a maximum of four colors in a way tion of a particular size (e.g., one hundred) individuals is 37
that ensures that no country has a neighbor with the same created by randomly choosing values for their genes; non- 38
color.9 Using EC to solve this problem implies a series elitist generational replacement, that is, each population of 39
of analogies. Each individual is a candidate solution to the individuals is entirely replaced by its descendants; and the 40
problem. In other words, each individual is a colored map. simulation will stop when the map-coloring with maximum 41
The fitness of an individual is proportional to the quality of fitness is found. 42
43

penousal machado and juan romero 157

SP_TER2_21_156-170.indd 157 2/1/11 12:02 PM

 1 Considering these choices, the algorithm would
2 proceed as follows. An initial population of one hundred
3 randomly generated individuals is created. Each of the
4 population’s individuals is evaluated and its fitness deter-
5 mined. Fifty pairs of individuals are selected as progenitors
6 by using tournament selection; individuals may be selected
7 more than once. These generate one hundred descendants
8 by the application of the genetic operators described earlier.
9 The descendants replace the progenitors, thus becoming the
10 current population. The cycle is repeated, from the evalua-
11 tion step, until a map where no neighboring countries share
12 the same color is found.
13 Currently the most prominent EC approaches are
14 Genetic Algorithms (GAs), invented by Holland, and Genetic
15 Programming, popularized by Koza 10 The most significant
16 differences between these approaches concern representa-
17 tion and genetic operators. In a GA, the genome codifies
18 a set of parameters or characteristics necessary to build the
19 phenotype and is typically represented by a string. Thus,
20 the described map-coloring approach is a GA. In GP the
21 genotypes are programs—typically represented by a tree-like
22 structure—the execution of which results in the phenotype.
23 To a large extent, the appeal of EC is its independence
24 from problem-specific knowledge. Thus, one does not need
25 to know how to solve a problem; the only requirements for
26 applying EC are finding an adequate encoding and a way to
27 assign fitness. Likewise, the ability to use EC in an artistic
28 domain depends on finding an adequate way to represent
29 and evaluate artistic objects.
30 In his 1986 book The Blind Watchmaker, Richard
31 Dawkins delineates a program that allows the evolution of
32 the morphology of “virtual creatures” or biomorphs.11 More
33 precisely, each biomorph is a drawing, the appearance of
34 which depends on the values of a set of parameters encoded
35 in a string, the genotype. The biomorphs of the current
36 population are displayed on the screen, and the user indi-
37 cates his/her favorite ones. In other words, the user guides
38 the GA, which circumvents the need to develop a com-
39 putational fitness function. This influential work led to the
40 emergence of a new research area, evolutionary art.12 Due
41 to the subjectivity inherent in artistic production, and the
42 subsequent difficulty of creating an algorithm capable of
43
158 evolutionary aesthetics
SP_TER2_21_156-170.indd 158
assigning fitness to an artwork, most evolutionary art systems
are also guided by the user.
Draves’ Electric Sheep—the name pays tribute to Philip
K. Dick’s novel Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?—is
one of the most notable evolutionary art projects.13 Like
Dawkins’ biomorphs, Electric Sheep features a user-guided
parametric evolution model. In this case, the individuals
are “fractal flames,” a particular kind of fractal, invented by
Draves, that belongs to the so-called Iterated Function Sys-
tem category of fractals.14 The genotypes consist of several
hundreds of floating point numbers that encode parameters
for the fractal formula, controlling the scattering of the bil-
lions of particles that compose each image. Electric Sheep is a
distributed computing project currently involving more than
350,000 users. Acting as a screensaver, it takes advantage of
the computer’s idle time to render the individuals, that is,
“sheep,” that are being evolved collectively. Interested users
can vote on their favorite sheep, thus shaping the course
of evolution.
In parametric evolution models, the genetic code is
a visual language defined by the designer of the system.
Therefore, “creating a parametric model implicitly creates a
set of possible designs or a solution space.”15 As such, these
systems tend to have an identifiable system signature that is
closely related to the choices made by the human designer.
The model should be compact, that is, genotypes should be
relatively small; expressive, meaning that it should allow a
wide variety of shapes; and robust, in the sense that interest-
ing images should be easy to find.16 Parametric evolution
has been applied to a wide variety of domains including
the evolution of cartoon faces,17 fonts,18 line drawings,19 sur-
faces,20 and consumer product design.21
The seminal work of Sims gave rise to another popu-
lar evolutionary art approach: expression-based evolution.22
In addition to Sims’ work, notable examples of this tech-
nique include works by Latham, Rooke, and Hart.23 (Hart’s
work is on the cover of TER.) We shall use NEvAr (Neuro
Evolutionary Art) to illustrate this approach. Largely inspired
by the work of Sims, it allows the evolution of populations
of images, using GP as in Sim’s work. Each genotype is a
program—in this case, a symbolic expression represented
as a tree. These programs are constructed from a lexicon
2/1/11 12:02 PM
 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
Figure 1. Still images from Generation 243 by Scott Draves and the Electric Sheep (2009), commissioned by Carnegie Mellon 41
University for the Gates Center of Computer Science 42
43

penousal machado and juan romero 159

SP_TER2_21_156-170.indd 159 2/1/11 12:02 PM

 1 of functions and terminals. The function set is composed
2 mainly of simple functions such as arithmetic, trigonometric,
3 and logic operations. The terminal set is composed of two
4 variables, x and y, and some random constants. The phe-
5 notype (image) is generated by evaluating the genotype for
6 each (x, y) pair belonging to the image. Thus, the images
7 generated by NEvAr are graphical portrayals of symbolic
8 expressions (see figure 2).
9 In order to produce color images, NEvAr resorts to
10 a special kind of terminal that returns a different value
11 depending on the color channel being processed. Recombi-
12 nation is performed using the standard GP crossover opera-
13 tor, which exchanges sub-trees between individuals.24 Five
14 mutation operators are used: sub-tree swap, sub-tree replace-
15 ment, node insertion, node deletion, and node mutation.25
16 Like most, if not all, evolutionary art systems, NEvAr
17 has a signature—in the sense that it is more prone to gen-
18 erate certain types of images than others—that is closely
19 related with the function set, genetic operators, and gen-
20 otype-phenotype mapping used. Nevertheless, as demon-
21 strated by Machado and Cardoso, it is theoretically possible
22 to generate any image with NEvAr, and the same is true
23 for several other expression-based evolutionary art systems.26
24 This means that “Every great (and not so great) work of
25 visual art is in there, past, present and future, as are images
26 of political assassinations, nude celebrities (even ones that
27 have never posed nude), serial killers, animals, plants, land-
28 scapes, buildings, every possible angle and perspective of our
29 planet at every possible scale and all the other planets, stars,
30 galaxies in the universe, both real and imaginary. Pictures
31 of next week’s winning lottery ticket, and of you holding
32 that winning ticket.”27
33 In practice, the images tend to be abstract and have a
34 computer-generated appearance. Nevertheless, a patient and
35 disciplined user is able to guide evolution from an initial,
36 randomly generated population, to populations of images
37 that meet the users’ preferences.
38 Recently, Graça and Machado have developed “Evolv-
39 ing Assemblages,” a system that evolves large-format repro-
40 ductions of input images by assembling 3-D objects, using
41 GP and interactive evolution.28 In this case, each individual
42 is a program that receives an image as input and generates
43
an assemblage as output. To accomplish this, each genotype
comprises five trees. Based on the input image and for each
of its pixels, the first tree selects, from a list of available
objects, which type of object will be placed on the canvas;
the second tree determines the rotation applied to each
object; the third one determines the size of each object; the
fourth one determines the x coordinate where the object
will be placed; and, finally, the fifth one determines the y
coordinate. Once the assemblage is calculated, the color of
objects is determined: each object assumes the color of the
pixel of the input image where its center is placed.
GP approaches have also been used in domains such
as the evolution of painterly renderings,29 line-based draw-
ings,30 plant-like shapes and other 3-D objects,31 l-systems
(see McCormack for a survey32), filters,33 animations,34 and
architectural plans.35
Outside the field of the visual arts, evolutionary
approaches based on GAs or GP have been applied to
sound synthesis, improvisation, harmonization and compo-
sition (see Miranda and Biles for a survey36); poetry genera-
tion37; choreography;38 and many other fields. (See figures
3, 4, and 5.)
Although interactive evolution techniques have been
used to produce a wide variety of artistic artifacts, this pres-
ents several problems. The most pressing problem is the user
fatigue caused by the need to evaluate a large number of
individuals.40 Other problems include the subjectivity of the
task, the lack of consistency in the users’ evaluations, and the
bias toward novelty. All these factors have a negative effect
on the evolutionary process. Moreover, interactive evolution
techniques skirt an important AI objective: building a com-
putational system capable of performing aesthetic judgments,
even if limited ones.
In general terms, there are three main approaches for
the automation of the fitness assignment step of evolution-
ary art systems: using handwritten fitness functions; using
machine learning techniques and using co-evolutionary
approaches.
Machado and Cardoso took inspiration from the
works of Arnheim as well as from research that points
toward a preference for simple representations of the world,
and a tendency to perceive it in terms of regular, symmetric

160 evolutionary aesthetics

SP_TER2_21_156-170.indd 160 2/1/11 12:02 PM

 Figure 2. In the top row: function f(x, y) = (x + y) / 2 represented as a tree (the format of the genotype); as a 3-D chart and as
an image produced by assigning to each pixel a luminance proportional to the height of the corresponding position of the
3-D chart. In the second row: two individuals and their corresponding genotypes. In the third row: the descendants produced by
performing a crossover operator at points PA and PB and swapping the corresponding sub-trees (depicted in lighter gray).

SP_TER2_21_156-170.indd 161 2/1/11 12:02 PM

 Figure 3. Images from the series bodies of sin created with NEvAr using interactive evolution. These images are, arguably, the
first set of pictorial images created using expression-based evolution and were first displayed at EvoMUSART’2005, Lausanne,
Switzerland.

SP_TER2_21_156-170.indd 162 2/1/11 12:02 PM

 Figure 4. Assemblages evolved by Graça and Machado in the scope of the Evolving Assemblages project, which won the 2010
Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conference Evolutionary Art Competition.

SP_TER2_21_156-170.indd 163 2/1/11 12:02 PM

 1 and constant shapes.41 As a consequence, they have explored
2 the working hypothesis that aesthetic value has a link with
3 the sensorial and intellectual pleasure experienced in finding
4 a compact percept (internal representation) of a complex
5 visual stimulus. The identification of symmetry, repetition,
6 rhythm, balance, et cetera, can be a way of reducing the
7 complexity of the percept, which may explain these aes-
8 thetic principles and the ability of the brain to recognize
9 them in an “effortless” way.
10 Following this set of ideas, in “Computing Aesthetics,”
11 we propose an aesthetic theory: those images that produce
12 a complex visual stimulus and yet result in a compact per-
13 cept—that is, a compact internal representation—tend to be
14 valued.42 For instance, fractal images are usually complex,
15 and highly detailed; yet they can be compactly described
16 by a simple mathematical formula. The self-similarity of
17 these images can make them easier for our brain to process,
18 allowing one to build a compact percept, which would
19 explain, according to this theory, why fractal images tend
20 to be aesthetically interesting.
21 To test this theory, we used JPEG- and quad-tree–
22 based fractal image compression to estimate the complexity
23 of the visual stimulus and the percept.43 In “All the Truth,”
24 we used a variation of the proposed formula to assign the
25 fitness, thus making NEvAr autonomous.44 In recent years,
26 several evolutionary art systems that use complexity esti-
27 mates to assign fitness have been proposed. Neufeld, Ross,
28 and Ralph present a genetic programming engine generat-
29 ing non-photorealistic filters by means of a fitness function
30 based on Ralph’s bell curve distribution of color gradient.45
31 The model was implemented by doing an empirical evalua-
32 tion of hundreds of artworks. Their paper contains examples
33 of some of the non-photorealistic filters created. In one of
34 his works, Greenfield uses geometric measurements induced
35 by the color organization of the images.46 The algorithm
36 reduces the images to a small number of regions of the
37 same color. Fitness is assigned by performing a weighted
38 sum of three geometric assessments of these regions: the
39 sum of their areas, of their boundary lengths, and of the
40 adjacencies among them. In a later work, Greenfield used
41 Figure 5. Morphogenetic design experiment—AA Strawberry a multiple-objective optimization approach to fitness assign-
42 Bar, 2003, Achim Menges, using Genr8.39 ment.47 The goal was to maintain several “species” within
43

164 evolutionary aesthetics

SP_TER2_21_156-170.indd 164 2/1/11 12:02 PM

 the same population of images. He defines multiple static system and the receiving agent issues a credit to the agent 1
fitness functions. Each of these functions uses two out of that discovered the image. Thus, although there is not a 2
three previously described assessments. Since the assessments direct arms race among agents, agents influence each other 3
are incompatible, this fosters the specialization of the indi- by communicating the genotypes of the artworks they pro- 4
viduals and the appearance of species. duce to other agents. 5
The first attempt to fully automate an evolutionary Rooke was the first one who made an attempt to use 6
art system appears in the work of Baluja, Pomerlau, and a co-evolutionary approach in the context of evolutionary 7
Todd.48 They begin by using interactive evolution to build art, but he never published the results of these experiments. 8
a set of images evaluated by users. In a later stage, they Gary Greenfield states that “Rooke’s idea was to try to co- 9
use machine-learning techniques, namely, Artificial Neural evolve a population of art critics, which he called ‘image 10
Networks (ANNs). ANNs are inspired in the structure and commentators,’ to perform the aesthetic evaluations of the 11
functional aspects of the brain. They are composed by a set images his Sims’ inspired system generated.”50 12
of interconnected (artificial) neurons, and have been used Greenfield implemented an interesting solution to 13
successfully in a wide variety of tasks, including time series the automation of the fitness assignment. He co-evolves a 14
prediction, robotic controllers, and face and character recog- population of images, using an expression-based evolution- 15
nition. The appeal of ANNs is their ability to learn from a ary system, and a population of convolution image filters. 16
set of examples. Baluja and colleagues use the set of images For determining fitness, the filters are applied to the images, 17
evaluated by the user to train an ANN, which is meant to possibly changing them. The fitness of an image is propor- 18
learn the preferences of the users. Although the authors clas- tional to the amount of change introduced by the filters. The 19
sify the results as “somewhat disappointing,” this work is an fitness of a filter is inversely proportional to the changes it 20
important step toward the automation of fitness assignment. introduces in the population of images. Thus, in simple terms, 21
Saunders and Gero use a Self-Organizing Map ANN each filter acts as a “parasite” and its survival depends on 22
to assign fitness to the images produced by an expression- the ability to pass unnoticed. On the other hand, the fitness 23
based evolutionary system.49 Self-Organizing Map ANNs of an image depends on its ability to identify the parasites, 24
do not require a training step; they automatically organize by making them visible. This co-evolutionary setup tends to 25
the input data—in this case, images—into clusters accord- converge toward states where white-noise images are pre- 26
ing to their similarity. (It is important to notice that this dominant. Nevertheless, a given type of imagery is, typically, 27
computational similarity may be significantly different from unable to dominate the population for too long because of 28
similarity as perceived by humans.) The goal of their system the evolutionary pressure caused by the parasites. This con- 29
is to study the emergence of novelty. As such, fitness depends stant tension generates an interesting evolutionary dynamic. 30
on the dissimilarity of an image to the existing clusters of The latest development of NEvAr is also inspired by 31
images. In general terms, the experimental results indicate co-evolution. Like Baluja and colleagues, we employ ANNs. 32
that their evolutionary algorithm tends to produce increas- However, there is an important difference: by employing 33
ingly complex images. a set of metrics—for example, complexity estimates—we 34
The work of Saunders and Gero also has a co-evo- measure several characteristics of the images; the ANNs base 35
lutionary inspired component. They use an agent-based their judgments on the characteristics of the images. Thus, 36
framework, where each artificial agent has its own expres- in simple terms, the ANNs never see the images; they only 37
sion-based evolutionary system and Self-Organizing Map. have access to their characteristics. By these means, the train- 38
When an agent finds an image that has the “right” degree ing of the ANNs is performed using information of a higher 39
of novelty, it shares the genotype with other agents. If a level of abstraction than the images’ pixels. 40
receiving agent also finds the image adequately novel, the The goals of this setup are twofold: first, the cre- 41
genotype is included in the population of its evolutionary ation of images without human intervention. The only 42
43

penousal machado and juan romero 165

SP_TER2_21_156-170.indd 165 2/1/11 12:02 PM

 1 information provided to the system is a set of images—in style, the goal is to break away from the traditional style
2 this case five thousand paintings made by renowned art- of the system. Once novel imagery is found—that is, when
3 ists—that acts as an aesthetic reference. Second, the creation NEvAr is able to find images that the classification system
4 of a system that systematically explores new styles. For this fails to classify as being created by NEvAr—these images
5 purpose, we employ a method, inspired by co-evolution are added to the second class, the classifier is retrained and
6 that promotes stylistic change from one evolutionary run a new evolutionary run begins. This process is iteratively
7 to the next. repeated and the method fosters a permanent search for
8 The ANNs are trained by showing them two classes novelty and deviation from previously explored paths.
9 of images: a set of paintings by well-known authors and In our last experiment, the system performed twelve
10 a set of images generated randomly by NEvAr. Once this consecutive evolutionary runs.51 During these runs, the arms
11 is done, an evolutionary run is initiated and the trained race between the ANNs and the evolutionary system was
12 ANNs are used to assign fitness to the images evolved by always balanced: the evolutionary engine was always able to
13 NEvAr. The evolved images that the ANNs fail to identify find images that were misclassified by the ANNs. However,
14 as being produced by NEvAr have maximum fitness. The after these were added to the set of training images, the
15 goal is twofold: first, to evolve images that relate to the ANNs were always able to discriminate between the images
16 aesthetic reference provided by the first class, which can be created by evolution and the set of paintings (with a success
17 considered to be an inspiring set; second, to evolve images rate above 98 percent), thus fostering a stylistic change in
18 that are novel in relation to the imagery typically produced the next evolutionary run. Additionally, we conducted some
19 by the system. Thus, rather than trying to replicate a given tests using the ANNs from different iterations to classify
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40 Figure 6. Examples of images created using NEvAr’s approach to stylistic change. The images in the top row characterize the
41 type of imagery being produced during the first evolutionary run of the process; the ones in the bottom row depict the style of
42 the eleventh evolutionary run of the experiment.
43

166 evolutionary aesthetics

SP_TER2_21_156-170.indd 166 2/1/11 12:02 PM

 external imagery that did not belong to the training sets. BIBLIOGRAPHY 1
The experimental results show a gradual improvement of 2
Arnheim, Rudolf. Towards a Psychology of Art/Entropy and Art: An
performance as the number of runs increases. This result 3
Essay on Disorder and Order. Berkeley: University of California
indicates that the competition between systems improved 4
Press, 1966.
not only the performance of the ANNs but also their gen- Appel, Kenneth, and Wolfgang Haken. “The Solution of the Four- 5
eralization abilities. The evaluation of the aesthetic merit of Color Map Problem.” Scientific American 237 (1977): 108–21. 6
the evolved images is subjective. Nevertheless, it is reason- Baker, Ellie. “Evolving Line Drawings.” Technical Report TR-21- 7
able to state that in each run evolution converged to a 93, Harvard University Center for Research in Computing 8
consistent style of imagery, and that the evolved styles are Technology, 1993. 9
all significantly different from each other. Hence, the main Baluja, Shumeet, Dean Pomerlau, and Jochem Todd. “Towards 10
goals of the approach were attained. Automated Artificial Evolution for Computer-Generated 11
The assessment of the aesthetic merit of the evolved Images.” Connection Science 6 (1994): 325–54. 12
images is subjective; therefore we provide examples of imag- Collomosse, John. “Evolutionary Search for the Artistic Rendering 13
of Photographs.” In The Art of Artificial Evolution: A Handbook
es evolved during the first and twelfth evolutionary runs. 14
on Evolutionary Art and Music, edited by Juan Romero and
The CD accompanying the handbook The Art of Artificial 15
Penousal Machado, 39–62. Berlin: Springer, 2007.
Evolution includes the thirty thousand images evolved in the Darwin, Charles. On the Origin of Species. London: John Murray, 16
course of this experiment.52 Additionally, it is safe to say 1859. 17
that in each run evolution converged to a consistent style Dawkins, Richard. The Blind Watchmaker: Why the Evidence of Evolu- 18
of imagery, and that the evolved styles are all significantly tion Reveals a Universe without Design. New York: W.W. Norton, 19
different from each other. 1987. 20
Evolutionary art research is reaching maturity, and Dennett, Daniel. Darwin’s Dangerous Idea. London: Penguin, 1995. 21
part of this process is the growing awareness of the various Dissanayake, Ellen. What Is Art For? Seattle: University of Wash- 22
social, artistic, and scientific challenges the area faces. From ington Press, 1987. 23
a social standpoint, building tools that foster the creativity Draves, Scott. Electric Sheep, http://www.electricsheep.org. 24
———. “Evolution and Collective Intelligence of the Electric
of the user is probably the most prominent goal. From an 25
Sheep.” In The Art of Artificial Evolution: A Handbook on Evo-
artistic perspective, the greatest challenge is the acceptance 26
lutionary Art and Music, edited by Juan Romero and Penousal
of the evolutionary approach as a significant art practice. Machado, 63–78. Berlin: Springer, 2007. 27
Promoting the participation and close involvement of artists Dubbin, Greg, and Stanley Kenneth. “Learning to Dance through 28
in the design of these systems is crucial for meeting this Interactive Evolution.” In Applications of Evolutionary Compu- 29
challenge. From a scientific standpoint, the most important tation, EvoApplications 2010: EvoCOMNET, EvoENVIRON- 30
challenges include the automation of fitness assignment, the MENT, EvoFIN, EvoMUSART, and EvoTRANSLOG, Istanbul, 31
creation of systems that develop their own aesthetics, the Turkey, April 7–9, 2010, Proceedings, Part II, edited by Cecilia 32
integration and interaction of these systems in a cultural Di Chio et al., 331–40. Berlin: Springer, 2010. 33
environment, and the pursuit of new forms of human– Durbin, Richard, and David Willshaw. “An Analogue Approach 34
machine interaction. to the Travelling Salesman Problem Using an Elastic Net 35
Method.” Nature 326 (1987): 689–91.
Evolutionary art results in dynamic models whose 36
Field, David, Anthony Hayes, and Robert F. Hess. “The Roles of
behavior is neither totally defined nor predictable by the 37
Polarity and Symmetry in the Perceptual Grouping of Con-
model’s creator. In fact, since the only requirement is having tour Fragments.” Spatial Vision 1 (2000): 51–66. 38
a way to assign fitness, EC allows the discovery of solutions Fisher Yuval. Fractal Image Compression: Theory and Application. New 39
to problems for which very little knowledge is available. This York: Springer, 1995. 40
allows their application to creative tasks, such as art, that we Greenfield, Gary. “Co-Evolutionary Methods in Evolutionary Art.” 41
are—and might always be—far from fully understanding. In The Art of Artificial Evolution: A Handbook on Evolutionary 42
43

penousal machado and juan romero 167

SP_TER2_21_156-170.indd 167 2/1/11 12:02 PM

 1 Art and Music, edited by Juan Romero and Penousal Machado, Evolution: A Handbook on Evolutionary Art and Music, edited
2 357–80. Berlin: Springer, 2007. by Juan Romero and Penousal Machado, 145–66. Berlin:
3 ———. “Color Dependent Computational Aesthetics for Evolving Springer, 2007.
4 Expressions.” In Bridges: Mathematical Connections in Art, Music, Kirkpatrick, Scott, D. Gelatt Jr., and Mario P. Vecchi. “Optimization
and Science; Conference Proceedings, edited by Reza Sarhangi, by Simulated Annealing.” Science 220 (1983): 671–80.
5
9–16. Winfield, KS: Central Plains Book Manufacturing, 2002. Koza, John. Genetic Programming: On the Programming of Computers
6
———. “Evolving Aesthetic Images Using Multiobjective Opti- by Means of Natural Selection. Cambridge: MIT Press, 1992.
7 mization.” In Evolutionary Computation, CEC 2003 Proceed- Lewis, Matthew. “Evolutionary Visual Art and Design.” In The Art
8 ings, Vol. 3, edited by Bob McKay et al., 1903–09. Canberra, of Artificial Evolution: A Handbook on Evolutionary Art and Music,
9 Australia: IEEE Press, 2003. edited by Juan Romero and Penousal Machado, 3–37. Berlin:
10 ———. “Robot Paintings Evolved Using Simulated Robots.” In Springer, 2007.
11 Applications of Evolutionary Computing, EvoWorkshops 2006: Machado, Penousal, and Amilcar Cardoso. “Computing Aesthetics.”
12 EvoBIO, EvoCOMNET, EvoHOT, EvoIASP, EvoINTERAC- XIVth Brazilian Symposium on Artificial Intelligence SBIA’98
13 TION, EvoMUSART, and EvoSTOC, Budapest, Hungary, April (Porto Alegre, Brazil), edited by Flávio Moreira de Oliveira,
14 10–12, 2006, Proceedings, edited by Franz Rothlauf et al., 219–29. Berlin: Springer, 1998.
15 611–21. Berlin: Springer, 2006. ———.“All the Truth about NEvAr.” Applied Intelligence, Special
Hart, David August. “Toward Greater Artistic Control for Interac- Issue on Creative Systems 16 (2002): 101–19
16
tive Evolution of Images and Animation.” In Applications of Machado, Penousal, and Fernando Graça. “Evolutionary Pointillist
17
Evolutionary Computing, EvoWorkshops 2007: EvoCoMnet, Evo- Modules: Evolving Assemblages of 3D Objects.” In Applica-
18 FIN, EvoIASP, EvoINTERACTION, EvoMUSART, EvoSTOC tions of Evolutionary Computing, EvoWorkshops 2008: EvoCOM-
19 and EvoTransLog Proceedings, edited by Giacobini et al., 527–36. NET, EvoFIN, EvoHOT, EvoIASP, EvoMUSART, EvoNUM,
20 Berlin: Springer, 2007. EvoSTOC, and EvoTransLog, Naples, Italy, March 26–28, 2008
21 Hemberg, Martin, Achim Menges, Katrin Jonas, Michel da Costa Proceedings, edited by Mario Giacobini et al., 453–62. Berlin:
22 Gonçalves, and Steve Fuchs. “Genr8: Architects Experience Springer, 2008.
23 with an Emergent Design Tool.” In The Art of Artificial Evolu- Machado, Penousal, Juan Romero, and Bill Manaris. “Experiments
24 tion: A Handbook on Evolutionary Art and Music, edited by Juan in Computational Aesthetics: An Iterative Approach to Sty-
25 Romero and Penousal Machado, 167–88. Berlin: Springer, listic Change in Evolutionary Art.” In The Art of Artificial
26 2007. Evolution: A Handbook on Evolutionary Art and Music, edited
Hervás, Raquel, Jason Robinson, and Pablo Gervás. “Evolutionary by Juan Romero and Penousal Machado, 381–415. Berlin:
27
Assistance in Alliteration and Allelic Drivel.” In Applications of Springer, 2007.
28
Evolutinary Computing, EvoWorkshops 2007: EvoCoMnet, Evo- McCormack, Jon. “Aesthetic Evolution of L-Systems Revisited.”
29 FIN, EvoIASP,EvoINTERACTION, EvoMUSART, EvoSTOC Applications of Evolutionary Computing, EvoWorkshops2004:
30 and EvoTransLog Proceedings, edited by Giacobini et al., 537–46. EvoBIO, EvoCOMNET, EvoHOT, EvoIASP, EvoMUSART,
31 Berlin: Springer, 2007. EvoSTOC (Coimbra, Portugal), edited by Günther Raidl et
32 Holland, John H. Adaptation in Natural and Artificial Systems. Ann al., 475–86. Berlin: Springer, 2004.
33 Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press, 1975 ———.“Facing the Future: Evolutionary Possibilities for Human-
34 ———. “Building Blocks, Cohort Genetic Algorithms, and Machine Creativity.” In The Art of Artificial Evolution: A Hand-
35 Hyperplane-Defined Functions.” Evolutionary Computation 8 book on Evolutionary Art and Music, edited by Juan Romero and
36 (2000): 373–91. Penousal Machado, 417–51. Berlin: Springer, 2007.
37 Hopfield, John. “Neurons with Graded Response Have Collective Miranda, Eduardo Reck, and John Al Biles, eds. Evolutionary Com-
Computational Properties Like Those of Two-State Neurons.” puter Music. London: Springer, 2007.
38
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States Neufeld, Craig, Brian Ross, and William Ralph. “The Evolution of
39
of America 81 (1984): 3088–92. Artistic Filters.” In The Art of Artificial Evolution: A Handbook
40 Jacob, Christian, and Gerald Hushlak. “Evolutionary and Swarm on Evolutionary Art and Music, edited by Juan Romero and
41 Design in Science, Art, and Music.” In The Art of Artificial Penousal Machado, 335–56. Berlin: Springer, 2007.
42
43

168 evolutionary aesthetics

SP_TER2_21_156-170.indd 168 2/1/11 12:02 PM

 Nichio, Kenichi. “Fuzzy Fitness Assignment in an Interactive 9. The four-color theorem was first conjectured the theo- 1
Genetic Algorithm for a Cartoon Face Search.” In Genetic rem in 1852 by F. Guthrie and was proven in 1977 by Appel and 2
Algorithms and Fuzzy Logic Systems: Soft Computing Perspective, Haken (“Solution”), who constructed a computer-assisted proof. 3
edited by Elie Sancheze, Takanori Shibata, and Lotfi Zadeh, 10. Holland, Adaptation; Koza, Genetic Programming. 4
175–92. River Edge, NJ: World Scientific Publishing Co., 11. Dawkins, Blind Watchmaker.
5
1997. 12. For a comprehensive survey of evolutionary and biologi-
6
Pontecorvo, Michael S., and Neil Elzenga. “Exploring Designer/ cal concepts in the visual arts, see Lewis, “Evolutionary Visual Art.”
Consumer Dialog in Evolutionary Design Systems.” In AISB 13. Draves, Electric Sheep. 7
Symposium on Creative Evolutionary Systems, edited by Peter 14. See Draves, “Evolution.” 8
Bentley and David Corne, 115–24. Brighton: Society for the 15. Lewis, “Evolutionary Visual Art,” 5. 9
Study of Artificial Intelligence and Simulation of Behaviour, 16. Draves, “Evolution.” 10
1999. 17. Lewis, “Evolutionary Visual Art”; Nichio, “Fuzzy Fitness 11
Romero, Juan and Penousal Machado, eds. The Art of Artificial Assignment.” 12
Evolution: A Handbook on Evolutionary Art and Music. Berlin: 18. Lewis, “Evolutionary Visual Art.” 13
Springer, 2007. 19. Baker, “Evolving Line Drawings.” 14
Sims, Karl. “Artificial Evolution for Computer Graphics.” ACM 20. Hemberg et al., “Genr8.” 15
Computer Graphics 25 (1991): 319–28. 21. Pontecorvo and Elzenga, “Exploring Designer/Consumer
16
Saunders, Rob, and John S. Gero. “The Digital Clockwork Muse: Dialog.”
17
A Computational Model of Aesthetic Evolution” In AISB’01 22. Sims, “Artificial Evolution.”
Symposium on Artificial Intelligence and Creativity in Arts and 23. Todd and Latham, “Evolutionary Art”; World, “Aesthetic 18
Science, edited by Geraint Wiggins, 12–21. Brighton: Soci- Selection”; Hart, “Toward Greater Artistic Control.” 19
ety for the Study of Artificial Intelligence and Simulation of 24. Koza, Genetic Programming. 20
Behaviour, 2001. 25. Machado and Cardoso, “All the Truth.” 21
Takagi, Hideyuki. “Interactive Evolutionary Computation: Fusion 26. Machado and Cardoso, “All the Truth.” 22
of the Capacities of EC Optimization and Human Evalua- 27. McCormack, “Facing the Future,” 425. 23
tion” Proceedings of the IEEE 9, no. 89 (2001): 1275–96. 28. Machado and Graça, “Evolutionary Pointillist Modules.” 24
Teller, Astro. “Smart Machines, and Why We Fear Them.” New York 29. Collomosse, “Evolutionary Search.” 25
Times, March 21, 1998. 30. Greenfield, “Robot Paintings Evolved.” 26
Todd, Steven, and William Latham. Evolutionary Art and Computers. 31. Jacob and Hushlak, “Evolutionary and Swarm Design.”
27
Winchester, UK: Academic Press, 1992. 32. McCormack, “Aesthetic Evolution.”
28
Tyler, Christopher. Human Symmetry Perception and Its Computational 33. Neufeld and Ross, “Evolution.”
Analysis. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2002. 34. Hart, “Toward Greater Artistic Control.” 29
World, Linda. “Aesthetic Selection: The Evolutionary Art of Steven 35. Hemberg et al., “Genr8.” 30
Rooke.” IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications 1 (1996):16. 36. Miranda and Biles, eds., Evolutionary Computer Music. 31
37. Hervás, Robinson, and Gervás, “Evolutionary Assistance.” 32
NOTES 38. Dubbin and Kenneth, “Learning to Dance.” 33
39. Hemberg et al., “Genr8.” 34
1. Teller, “Smart Machines.” 40. Takagi, “Interactive Evolutionary Computation” 35
2. Dissanayake, What Is Art For? 41. Machado and Cardoso, “Computing Aesthetics”; Arn- 36
3. Kirkpatrick, Gelatt, and Vecchi, “Optimization.” heim, Towards a Psychology; Field, Hayes, and Hess, “Roles of Polar- 37
4. Hopfield, “Neurons.” ity”; Tyler, Human Symmetry Perception.
38
5. Durbin and Willshaw, “Analogue Approach.” 42. Machado and Cardoso, “Computing Aesthetics.”
39
6. Darwin, Origin of Species. 43. Fisher, Fractal Image Compression.
44. Machado and Cardoso, “All the Truth.” 40
7. Dennett, Darwin’s Dangerous Idea.
8. Holland, “Building Blocks,” 377. 45. Neufeld, Ross, and Ralph, “Evolution.” 41
42
43

penousal machado and juan romero 169

SP_TER2_21_156-170.indd 169 2/1/11 12:02 PM

 1 46. Greenfield, “Color Dependent Computational Aesthetics.” 49. Saunders and Gero, “Digital Clockwork Muse.”
2 47. Greenfield, “Evolving Aesthetic Images.” 50. Greenfield, “Co-Evolutionary Methods,” 361.
3 48. Baluja, Pomerlau, and Todd, “Automated Artificial 51. Machado, Romero, and Manaris, “Experiments.”
4 Evolution.” 52. Romero and Machado, Artificial Evolution.
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43

170 evolutionary aesthetics

SP_TER2_21_156-170.indd 170 2/1/11 12:02 PM

 poetry

poetry
1
2
3
4
5
Impassioned Speech about Poetry and Evolution 6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
ANDREW C. HIGGINS Darwinian approaches to literature seem to be entering a golden age. The 16
past two years alone have seen the publication of several important works, 17
including Denis Dutton’s popular book The Art Instinct: Beauty, Pleasure, and 18
Human Evolution, in which he describes a Darwinian approach to aesthetics; 19
Evolution, Literature, and Film: A Reader (edited by Brian Boyd, Joseph Carroll,
20
and Jonathan Gottschall), a collection of essays that reveals the breadth and
21
diversity of Darwinian literary studies; Bioculture: Evolutionary Cultural Studies, a
22
special issue of Politics and Culture edited by Joseph Carroll; and of course the
23
appearance of this journal. Perhaps the most significant publication was Brian
24
Boyd’s masterful work On the Origin of Stories: Evolution, Cognition, and Fiction,
25
which achieved the seemingly impossible feat of eliciting praise (however faint
26
and condescending) from Terry Eagleton and Michael Bérubé. Who knows,
27
this may signal a grudging acknowledgment from mainstream literary scholar-
28
ship that there’s something to the biopoetic approach. Yet to date, there hasn’t
29
been much poetry in biopoetics. Fiction has hogged the spotlight. Yes, Jona-
30
than Gottschall has discussed The Iliad, and Brian Boyd explores The Odyssey
31
and Horton Hears a Who (written in rollicking anapestic tetrameter). But their
32
provocative discussions of these works treat them as narrative.1
33
I suspect that this focus on narrative is due to several factors. Fiction
34
dominates all areas of literary study at the moment, and there’s no reason
35
Darwinian literary study should be any different. More substantively, though,
36
poetry is so much harder to define than fiction. It’s a slippery phenomenon,
37
one that doesn’t lend itself easily to the kind of cross-cultural and transhis-
38
torical study that Darwinian literary scholars engage in. Definition is among
39
the first steps in science, and poetry, in all its perplexity, resists definition. As
40
Emily Dickinson would say,
41
42
43

andrew c. higgins 171

SP_TER2_22_171-179.indd 171 2/1/11 12:02 PM

 1 I dwell in Possibility—
2 A fairer House than Prose—2
3 But poetry isn’t that stable. Today when most people
4 Finally, Darwinian literary scholars have mostly viewed a
5 predilection for creating and consuming literature as an
6 adaptation that evolved through natural selection. Because
7 of this, they’ve been searching for the utility of poetry.3
8 However, Geoffrey Miller has argued that human intelli-
9 gence and creativity evolved through sexual selection as
10 fitness indicators, signals to potential mates of evolutionary
11 fitness. A sort of human version of the peacock’s tail.4 In
12 this essay, I’m going to suggest we take up Miller’s chal-
13 lenge and explore poetry—specifically lyric poetry—as a
14 manifestation of the lyric motive, an adaptation developed
15 through sexual selection to display fitness to potential mates.
16 The implication of Miller’s approach is that it takes us in
17 a very different direction from approaches based in natural
18 selection. It takes us away from hermeneutics—the interpre-
19 tation of texts—toward aesthetic analysis. To explore poetry
20 from a Darwinian perspective, then, would not be to ask
21 “what does it mean?” (traditional modes of literary criticism
22 are more than capable of answering these questions), but
23 rather, “why does it please?” a question too often ignored by
24 literary scholars over the past thirty years, and inadequately
25 addressed before that.
26 But before we tackle that question, we first need to
27 make “poetry” a little less slippery.
28
29 It makes sense that Darwinian theorists would begin with
30 narrative because its stability makes it much easier to exam-
31 ine across culture and history. Narrative, for all its vari-
32 ety, is narrative. Whether the narrative is one of Chaucer’s
33 Canterbury Tales, a folk tale, The Scarlet Letter, a story told
34 over drinks in a bar, a myth recounted around a Pleisto-
35 cene campfire, the Gospel according to Luke, an episode
36 of Friends, or Jonathan Safran Foer’s novel Extremely Loud
37 and Incredibly Close, it contains a story. A central theme for
38 Darwinian theorists is the endurance of story. Though the
39 literary forms change—oral tales, narrative poems, short sto-
40 ries, movies, novels (each with their own many formula-
41 tions)—each is another rendering of story. So the biological
42 predisposition for narrative may take many shapes in differ-
43
172 poetry
SP_TER2_22_171-179.indd 172
ent cultural and historical points in human history, but the
narrative element in each is clearly defined.
think about poetry (if they think about poetry) they proba-
bly have in mind something along the lines of Wordsworth’s
formulation, in his preface to Lyrical Ballads, that “all good
poetry is the spontaneous overflow of powerful feelings.”5
Wordsworth actually said a lot more than that, but that’s
what most readers tend to remember. When I ask my stu-
dents to define poetry, they usually say something about it
being emotionally intense. If prodded, people might add
that poetry is deeply personal, beautiful, and finally, “hard
to read.” (This truncated version of romantic poetics might
sound flip but isn’t meant to. I am describing a broad,
popular conception of poetry that has a close affinity with
Romanticism of a Wordsworthian strain.) So if you were to
place before our hypothetical student Philip Freneau’s 1785
poem “On the Emigration to America and Peopling of the
Western Country,” he or she would be mighty confused:
To western woods, and lonely plains,
Palemon from the crowd departs,
Where Nature’s wildest genius reigns,
To tame the soil, and plant the arts—
What wonders there shall freedom show,
What mighty states successive grow!6
Yes, it looks like a poem. It’s got line breaks and rhymes. It’s
written in a regular meter (iambic tetrameter). It’s a poem.
And yet this doesn’t sound very spontaneous. It certainly
isn’t “deeply personal.” Any difficulty is due only to modern
unfamiliarity with meter. It reads like an editorial in verse.
And herein lies the first problem with explaining “poetry”
from an evolutionary perspective. Whereas all fiction tells a
story, poems can do anything language can do.
As we look at poetry from across time, we find poems
that tell stories (Canterbury Tales, again), poems that explore
philosophical questions (Alexander Pope’s An Essay On
Man), poems that explain how to seduce lovers (Ovid’s The
Art of Love), poems that sell products (commercial jingles),
and so on. This is because “poetry” refers both to a tech-
nology (the use of line breaks in writing) and something
2/1/11 12:02 PM
 else—that ineffable “meter-making argument” that Emerson on the book, much like subscribers of a concert series do 1
writes about. When we talk about poetry in the twenty- today. This public nature of publishing meant that poetry 2
first century, what we really mean (most of the time) is had a public cast to it. Poets often wrote to address a wide 3
lyric poetry. All this would seem to suggest that poetry is public audience, as Freneau does. Poetry, then, was not a 4
in fact some kind of cultural construction: a set of cultur- venue of public confession. It’s rare to find an eighteenth- 5
ally, historically, and technologically specific practices that century poet who would declare, as Robert Lowell does in 6
poets learn (to varying degrees) and deploy. Over the past “Skunk Hour,” “my mind’s not right” (much less incorpo- 7
several years, many scholars in my field (nineteenth-century rate private letters from his ex-wife, as Lowell also does). 8
American poetry) have been arguing that the lyric poem As the market economy developed, however, bookselling 9
as we know it is a construction of the 1900s; accordingly, fostered more of a private interaction between author and 10
they argue, when we read a poet such as Emily Dickinson reader (or at least the illusion of that). As a result, poems 11
as a lyric poet, we’re committing what Virginia Jackson calls increasingly came to feel as if they were direct communi- 12
“lyricization,” a kind of literary anachronism: “a retropro- cation between one individual and another. And the ideals 13
jection of modernity, a new concept artificially treated to of Romanticism, which valued and vaunted the individual 14
appear old.”7 This form of reading, she argues, develops in self, encouraged the introspection found in romantic poetry 15
the twentieth century, and is then anachronistically applied (Wordsworth’s “powerful feelings”).8 16
to older poems. Jackson attributes this anachronistic thinking But all this does not mean that lyric poetry only came 17
to our modern idea of the lyric poem as ahistoric, disem- about with the advent of Romanticism. Examples of what 18
bodied text, a medium in which a speaker utters his or her the modern mind calls poetry abound in the ancient world. 19
innermost thoughts to the reader, who also is conceived as Readers of Pindar and Sappho, Rumi and Hafez, Tu Fu or 20
an individual—in contrast to Freneau’s audience, which is Li Bai all recognize the ancient presence of lyric poetry, 21
addressed as a public. And she’s right. Up to a point. even when these poets differ from Walt Whitman and Emily 22
The technological, cultural, and economic changes of Dickinson, as they often do. Today when we talk about 23
the 1800s certainly shaped poetry. The emergence of canals poetry, at heart we are talking about lyricism, which is the 24
and railroad along with steam presses enabled poetry to be concentrated, beautiful, emotionally saturated, and highly 25
produced cheaply and disseminated widely, which meant skilled use of language. (Definitions of lyric poetry abound, 26
that poets began writing for a wider audience. Further, the and the vast majority converge on these qualities.)9 What 27
development of market capitalism changed the relationship happens in the act of reading lyric language is that we see 28
between poet and reader, allowing for a seemingly much on display intelligence, emotional sensitivity, and linguistic 29
more intimate relationship between the two. In America prowess. This, I think, is true in any lyric passage of writing. 30
in the 1700s, the relationship between poet and reader was Take for example Twain’s description of a thunderstorm in 31
usually a public relationship. Poets in the 1700s typically dis- chapter 9 of Huckleberry Finn: 32
seminated their poetry by passing manuscript copies around 33
to friends and family. And not just particular friends, but Directly it begun to rain, and it rained like all 34
neighbors and fellow church members; so a person’s pub- fury, too, and I never see the wind blow so. 35
lic reputation was on the line. This wasn’t the forum for It was one of these regular summer storms. It 36
expressing deeply personal quandaries. When the poems would get so dark that it looked all blue-black 37
were published, they appeared in newspapers. On the rare outside, and lovely; and the rain would thrash 38
occasions when they appeared in books, those books were along by so thick that the trees off a little ways 39
usually published through the subscription system, whereby looked dim and spider-webby; and here would 40
wealthy, prominent citizens would underwrite the publica- come a blast of wind that would bend the trees 41
tion of the book, and would in turn have their names listed down and turn up the pale underside of the 42
43

andrew c. higgins 173

SP_TER2_22_171-179.indd 173 2/1/11 12:02 PM

 1 leaves; and then a perfect ripper of a gust would
2 follow along and set the branches to tossing their
3 arms as if they was just wild; and next, when
4 it was just about the bluest and blackest—FST!
5 it was as bright as glory, and you’d have a little
6 glimpse of tree-tops a-plunging about away off
7 yonder in the storm, hundreds of yards further
8 than you could see before; dark as sin again in
9 a second, and now you’d hear the thunder let
10 go with an awful crash, and then go rumbling,
11 grumbling, tumbling, down the sky towards the
12 under side of the world, like rolling empty bar-
13 rels down stairs—where it’s long stairs and they
14 bounce a good deal, you know.10
15
16 We admire this passage as something beautiful embedded in
17 the larger narrative. But largely it serves to develop the nar-
18 rative. It helps us to flesh out Huck’s character (he’s sensitive
19 enough to recognize the beauty and power of the storm),
20 and the storm’s sublime inhuman beauty stands in contrast
21 to the pathetic failings of the human beings Huck and Jim
22 encounter. Lyricism in the passage functions much in the
23 same way it has in religious or political speech stretching
24 from The Book of Common Prayer back, presumably, into the
25 Pleistocene, as an adjunct to a larger purpose.
26 But something different happens in a lyric poem,
27 such as Whitman’s “Out of the Cradle Endlessly Rock-
28 ing” or Keats’ “Ode on a Grecian Urn.” In these poems,
29 the exceptional lyricism is deployed in the process of a
30 single mind working through a deeply important problem.
31 The aesthetic experience of the poem does not occur if
32 we only understand the conventions and references in the
33 work; we must also understand the voice. Aesthetic experi-
34 ence involves the reader achieving a kind of communion
35 or identification with the poet (or speaker). This is dif-
36 ferent from understanding, which is the consequence of
37 interpretation, and is closer to what Peter Lamarque and
38 other aestheticians call “appreciation.” Lamarque describes
39 appreciation as “a trained mode of discernment,” stressing
40 the importance of the reader’s familiarity with the cultural
41 and artistic conventions that the work of art draws on.11
42 My account of aesthetic experience differs from Lamarque’s
43
174 poetry
SP_TER2_22_171-179.indd 174
primarily in that I would add the importance of the feeling
of connection the reader has with the voice of the poem.
The aesthetic experience itself, then, involves an intense
feeling of connection with another person. We feel pro-
foundly moved by the poem. But what’s more, we feel
that some other human being also felt that same way. In
cognitive terms, “the reader’s brain in the act of reception
mirrors the writer’s act of creation.”12 In short, we feel
loved (or something like it). I’ve said to my students, half
jokingly, that great poets will be their most constant lovers.
Once you feel T. S. Eliot speak to you, he will always be
there for you, patiently waiting on your shelf. He will never
tire of you, nor decide someone else is more interesting or
attractive (though you may tire of him). It is as if some
extraordinary person is unburdening him or herself to us.
It’s almost akin to seduction. If we read correctly (that is,
if we’re familiar with the conventions, get the references,
know the literary tradition well enough, are familiar with
the work’s culture of origin, and understand what all the
words mean), we have the experience of communion with
this particular, exceptional mind. In this way of reading,
the point of a poem as a poem is not the knowledge it
produces. That’s of interest to us as cultural historians, and
it plays some role in appreciation. But that is distinct from
aesthetic appreciation—that experience of communion. And
we value that experience—it gives us intense pleasure—
because it mimics the experience of seduction, of finding
and falling for someone who is brilliant and beautiful and
who, to our delight, finds us attractive enough to lay bare
to us his or her most private self. So when I read “Out of
the Cradle Endlessly Rocking,” the point is not that I learn
that death is the mother of beauty—which is something of
a commonplace—but that I assent to Whitman’s experience.
What happened during the 1800s was that this concentrated
form of poetry came to squeeze out other forms. This does
not mean, though, that it was wholly a construction of that
historical moment.
What was happening was that these specific histori-
cal exigencies were shaping an age-old feature of human
nature—the tendency to play with language and to display
the self through speech—what Darwin in The Descent of
Man calls “impassioned speech.”13 Geoffrey Miller, in The
2/1/11 12:02 PM
 Mating Mind, argues that the skillful use of language in able to fold all that into three identical nine-line stanzas of 1
general (and poetry in particular) acts as a sexually selected rhyming couplets of iambic pentameter (the last three lines 2
fitness indicator with which individuals advertise themselves are triplets). In short, the poem seduces (if it seduces) not 3
to potential mates. In Miller’s account, an individual’s skill with logic, but with a display of wit and verbal intelligence. 4
with language allows him or her to display both personality How this pleases can be explained by literary analysis. But 5
(including desirable traits such as humor, kindness, playful- figuring out why this pleases requires evolutionary and cog- 6
ness, and creativity) and intelligence to potential mates. nitive psychology. This same seduction is latent in much 7
It’s easy to see Miller’s ideas at work in John Donne’s more serious poems, ones that have nothing to do with 8
seduction poem “The Flea,” in which the speaker argues deflowering Renaissance maidens. Poems as different (and 9
that, because the flea that bit him also bit the female audi- seemingly asexual) as T. S. Eliot’s “The Love Song of J. Alfred 10
tor without causing any harm to person or honor, no Prufrock,” Marianne Moore’s “The Fish,” and June Jordan’s 11
harm could possibly come from the two of them having “Poem about My Rights” all draw us toward the voice of 12
sex. When I ask my students how this poem would have the speaker and the skill of the language. They may, individu- 13
seduced, they usually look at me like I’m nuts. But John ally, do other things. But as lyric poems they create a sense 14
Donne wasn’t interested in women dumb enough to fall for of connection and attraction between speaker and reader. 15
this line. (Though knowing the younger Donne, he probably In a recent article, Dirk Vanderbeke takes issue with 16
wouldn’t have refused them.) Rather, the poem sets out to Miller’s use of sexual selection. He asserts that “prehistoric 17
snare a smarter woman, one who could appreciate his wit, peoples had more important things to communicate and 18
his skill with language, his psychological intelligence. Part more vital information to store than merely the poetic coo- 19
of the fun of the poem comes from the way the speaker ing of testosterone-loaded males or the equivalents of mod- 20
anticipates his paramour’s responses, as when she squishes ern day lyrical poetry, no matter how beautiful it may ever 21
the flea and he reacts, in mock horror: be.”15 But Miller does not envision Pleistocene sonneteers 22
successfully wooing women away from their tongue-tied 23
Cruell and sodain, hast thou since competitors. He is careful to point out that in the Pleis- 24
Purpled they naile, in blood of innocence? tocene there were no professional artists. Instead, he argues 25
Wherein could this flea guilty bee, that sexually selected preferences for linguistic skill would 26
Except in that drop which it suckt from thee? have led (in societies that specialize) to the development 27
Yet thou triumph’st, and saist that thou of specialized arts such as poetry. But that aside, few things 28
Find’st not they selfe nor mee the weaker now; are more important than mating. And humans have long 29
taken extraordinary risks in order to mate, as much litera- 30
And here’s where Donne springs the witty trap: ture records—the goings-on of Helen, Paris, and Menelaus, 31
for example. 32
’Tis true, then learne how false fears bee; As an alternative to Miller’s conception, Vanderbeke 33
Just so much honor, when thou yeeld’st to mee, argues that poetic form (defined as meter and parallelism) 34
Will waste, as this flea’s death tooke life from thee.14 developed in order to help people memorize useful infor- 35
mation. This might be true—and I’m certainly not argu- 36
Whether she was real or just an ardent figment of the poet’s ing here that fitness indicator theory explains all the arts. 37
imagination, the woman to whom this poem appealed would But Vanderbeke’s argument is not a complete explanation of 38
have appreciated the skill involved in the psychological set poetry. It does not account for the beauty of poetry (also a 39
up, the social intelligence enfolded into the speaker’s discus- universal). It does not account for the wide variety of poetic 40
sion of sex and virginity, and even the speaker’s flirtatious skill among the human population. And it does not account 41
insincerity (“cruell and sodaine”!). What’s more, the poet is for the formal experimentation of poetry (in fact, it would 42
43

andrew c. higgins 175

SP_TER2_22_171-179.indd 175 2/1/11 12:02 PM

 1 seem to argue against the formal complexity of much poetry,
2 particularly free verse). Miller’s theory does account for these
3 things. As he explains, fitness indicators by their very nature
4 offer little survival benefit and yet are costly. Invoking Amotz
5 Zahavi’s “handicap principle,” Miller explains that it is the
6 high costs of sexual ornaments that make them “reliable as
7 indicators of fitness.”16 If a creature has the resources not just
8 to survive but also to produce something as intricate, useless,
9 and resource-intensive as a peacock’s tail or a villanelle, that
10 creature is very likely to be genetically fit. Further, in order
11 to be a reliable indicator of fitness, a trait must have wide
12 variability in the population, as language play indeed does.
13
14 To traditional evolutionary psychologists, human
15 abilities like music, humor, and creativity do
16 not look like adaptations because they look
17 too variable, too heritable, too wasteful, and
18 not very modular. But these are precisely the
19 features we should expect of fitness indicators.
20 If a human mental trait shows large individual
21 difference, high heritability, high condition-
22 dependence, high costs, and high correlations
23 with other mental and physical abilities, then it
24 may have evolved through sexual selection as a
25 fitness indicator, (Mating Mind, 132–33)
26
27 Miller applies this to poetry directly (albeit briefly) in a
28 late chapter of The Mating Mind, describing it as “a system
29 of handicaps” in which the formal poetic elements (rhyme,
30 meter, etc.) make expression more difficult and hence a
31 better indicator of verbal intelligence and fitness (Mating
32 Mind, 379–83).
33 So where does this leave us? While much of the
34 thrust of Darwinian literary studies to date has been to
35 discover new ways of interpreting works of literature, I don’t
36 think that’s where we’re going to end up with poetry. The
37 approach I have outlined here does not require new forms
38 of literary analysis, per se, though it does require reclaiming
39 some that have fallen out of favor—the study of prosody is
40 just one example. Rather, what this approach calls for is a
41 turn away from interpretation and toward aesthetic analysis.
42 The role of the Darwinian critic, then, is to use many of
43
176 poetry
SP_TER2_22_171-179.indd 176
the traditional tools of literary analysis to explain how poems
please, and to use the tools of evolutionary and cognitive
psychology to explain why.
This turn toward aesthetics is already under way in
mainstream literary studies. The publication of Frank Sib-
ley’s essays in the last decade has helped drive a renewed
interest in aesthetics. Dyed-in-the-wool constructivists such
as Emory Elliot and Paul Lauter have cautiously endorsed a
kind of culturally sensitive aesthetic analysis.17 (And despite
the misconceptions of many constructivists, the biocultural
approach of Darwinian literary studies already is grounded in
environmental [cultural and historical] conditions.) And most
significant of all, in Production of Presence: What Meaning Cannot
Convey, Hans Ulrich Gumbrecht calls for a full-throated turn
away from hermeneutics and toward aesthetic analysis that
explores the text’s ability to move the body, thus proposing
“a rethinking and ultimately . . . a reconfiguration of some of
the conditions of knowledge production within the humani-
ties.”18 Here too, the Darwinian approach has already arrived.
Though he never mentions Darwin or evolution,
Gumbrecht ultimately points toward a biologically based
criticism. For Gumbrecht, a scholar grounded in Marxist
and Poststructuralist theory, “presence” refers to the tangible,
what is “in front of us, in reach of and tangible to our
bodies” (Production, 17). That which is present, Gumbrecht
informs us, “can have an immediate impact on human bod-
ies” (Production, 1). Therefore, to study the way texts produce
presence is to study the way texts call forth or elicit tangible
reaction—the way they “touch” our body. For Gumbrecht,
coming as he does from a scholarly tradition that views
language as an artificial construct, the notion that language
can affect the body is almost magical—and heretical (the
long autobiographical sections of the book come across as
almost confessional). But Darwinian scholars are ground-
ed in contemporary linguistics and cognitive theory; they
already recognize that thought and language are physical,
bodily actions; and they are thus ideally suited to take up
Gumbrecht’s challenge. Indeed, they already have.
If mainstream literary scholarship is already turn-
ing toward the aesthetic, why does it need a Darwinian
approach? A Darwinian approach would give aesthetics a
solid theoretical foundation. It would remind us of the evo-
2/1/11 12:02 PM
 lutionary constraints on human nature and expression, and Earth of shine and dark mottling the tide of 1
would help explain why certain features of poetic language the river! 2
are found across cultures. (Dutton is illuminating on this Earth of the limpid gray of clouds brighter 3
point.) Such a foundation makes possible a consilient theory and clearer for my sake! 4
of poetry. That kind of theory offers an aesthetics based on Far-swooping elbow’d earth—rich apple- 5
the solid ground of cognitive and evolutionary psychology blossom’d earth! 6
and could allow us, potentially, to describe poetic effects Smile, for your lover comes.20 7
from the level of the text through that of the gene. 8
One possible result from this kind of theory would 9
To say that we take pleasure in the parallelisms and fresh
be a biologically informed comparative aesthetics. To take 10
imagery doesn’t say much (and is in fact a little circular—
just one example, there are striking similarities between 11
and begs the question why). Yes, it differentiates Whitman
the poetry of Walt Whitman and the Persian poet Rumi. 12
from other poets, but it doesn’t explain why Whitman gives
Both share an ecstatic vision, use long lines, addresses the 13
us such pleasure where Martin Farquhar Tupper doesn’t.
reader directly, and write an erotically charged poetry. Yet 14
(Tupper was a popular poet of the mid-1800s who pio-
the cultural origins of these two poets—one from medi- 15
neered the long line; Whitman admired his work.) We can
eval Persia and the other from mid-nineteenth-century 16
turn to Miller, then, and say that Whitman’s poetry signals
Brooklyn—couldn’t be more different.19 The constructivist 17
intelligence, linguistic skill, and fitness. But again, this doesn’t
approach offers no real grounds for comparison of the two 18
say anything very specific about the poetry. Why does Whit-
writers; its theoretical foundation would push us to see 19
man signal greater fitness to us than Tupper does? And just
the similarities as coincidences. Darwinian and cognitive 20
what is “linguistic skill,” and how do we recognize it? Cog-
approaches, in contrast, could illuminate the historical and 21
nitive science can take us a little further. It can show how
cultural differences between the two poets by identifying 22
poems elicit different reactions in the brain. Patrick Colm
the human universals and brain processes underlying the 23
Hogan, for example, has shown how avant-garde jazz music
similarities between them. Ultimately, this would offer a 24
plays with short- and long-term memory, creating cogni-
much more sophisticated and satisfying explanation for the 25
tive dissonance (which leads to boredom or even anger)
present-day popularity of Rumi than the kind of thing a 26
in listeners unfamiliar with jazz, and intense pleasure in
constructivist approach would typically offer: the idea that 27
the minds of skilled listeners.21 A similar process could be
modern Americans are inevitably misreading him because 28
at work with Whitman’s parallelisms or Dickinson’s slant
he comes from a different time and place. 29
rhymes and rough meter. Yet cognitive explanations alone
Evolutionary and cultural explanations ultimately have 30
seem trapped within the brain, unable to explain how we
to work together. At the level of aesthetic experience, terms 31
got to this point. We can detect this entrapment in Norman
like fitness and pleasure are unsatisfactorily vague. To say that 32
Holland’s rejection of an evolutionary approach:
Whitman’s poetry gives pleasure is an understatement, and 33
a not very insightful one. What does it mean to say that 34
we take pleasure in lines like this? Why do we do literature? My answer is simple 35
and not evolutionary: we do literature because 36
Smile O voluptuous cool-breath’d earth! we enjoy it. We enjoy it because of the way 37
Earth of the slumbering and liquid trees! our brains deal with it. Our brains on literature 38
Earth of departed sunset—earth of the function differently from our brains in ordinary 39
mountains misty-topt! life, but in some ways the same. We seek satis- 40
Earth of the vitreous pour of the full moon factions, and when we get them, that gives us 41
just tinged with blue! pleasure. (Literature, 9) 42
43

andrew c. higgins 177

SP_TER2_22_171-179.indd 177 2/1/11 12:02 PM

 1 But why? Despite Holland’s stern rejection, an evolutionary
2 approach offers an answer. Actions that give pleasure typi-
3 cally confer some kind of survival or reproductive advantage.
4 Separately, these three fields—evolutionary psychology,
5 cognitive science, and literary analysis—fail to give full sat-
6 isfaction. But if we put them together, they can produce a
7 powerful explanation of poetic pleasure. Aesthetics and liter-
8 ary analysis can identify the different formal and rhetorical
9 elements of the poem (rhyme, theme, parallelism, imagery,
10 and so on) and describe our experience of them. Cognitive
11 science can explain that experience in terms of brain pro-
12 cesses and describe the different types of pleasures produced.
13 And evolutionary psychology, in addition to providing an
14 overall theory (fitness indicator theory) about why poetry
15 pleases us, can explain in evolutionary and psychological
16 terms why particular poems move us.
17 If we combine this three-fold disciplinary perspective
18 with cultural and historical studies, we could classify poems
19 across cultures and historical periods, understanding with
20 some precision why some poems appeal to some readers
21 and not others. We could explain why some readers are
22 drawn to Rumi and Whitman, despite the vast cultural and
23 historical gulfs between the two; why some very skilled
24 readers find Emily Dickinson off putting, even while she
25 remains popular with many novice readers; why a poet such
26 as Henry Wadsworth Longfellow was the most popular poet
27 in the world during the 1800s but then steadily faded from
28 memory during the 1900s. At the moment, we have partial
29 answers to each of these questions, but by linking together
30 diverse academic domains in a single, consilient theory, we
31 would have the potential to fashion interconnected answers
32 at the cultural, individual, cognitive, and even genetic level.
33 That’s nearly as good a trick as justifying the ways of God
34 to men.
35 Of course, this may be too tall an order for any one
36 scholar. Literary analysis, evolutionary psychology, cognitive
37 psychology are each by themselves daunting fields to mas-
38 ter, and the last two are in a period of dramatic growth.
39 And few literary scholars can do what Brian Boyd and
40 Joseph Carroll have done, schooling themselves in a heav-
41 ily scientific field mid-career. (And few cognitive and evo-
42 lutionary psychologists have a profound understanding of
43
178 poetry
SP_TER2_22_171-179.indd 178
literature.) By sticking to literary scholarship’s penchant for
single authorship, we limit ourselves. What we need, then,
is a new, collaborative model of research, in which liter-
ary scholars work together with evolutionary and cogni-
tive psychologists to explain poetic pleasure, drawing on
each other’s expertise. Yes, in addition to thinking more
like scientists, literary scholars need to adapt some of their
institutional practices as well; we need to learn to work in
groups. Modern literary scholarship grew, in the 1800s, out
of biblical scholarship, and still today it retains the methodol-
ogy of the singe devout scholar pouring over the text and
fashioning meaning from it. It may be time to exchange
our priestly robes for lab coats.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Bérubé, Michael. “The Play’s the Thing,” review of On the Ori-
gin of Stories: Evolution, Cognition, and Fiction, by Brian Boyd.
American Scientist, January-February 2010, www.americansci-
entist.org.
Boyd, Brian. On the Origin of Stories: Evolution, Cognition, and Fic-
tion. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2009.
Boyd, Brian, Joseph Carroll, and Jonathan Gottschall, eds. Evolution,
Literature, and Film: A Reader. New York: Columbia University
Press, 2010.
Brady, Emily, and Jerrold Levinson, eds. Aesthetic Concepts: Essays
After Sibley. New York: Oxford University Press, 2001.
Carroll, Joseph, ed. “Bioculture: Evolutionary Cultural Studies.”
Special evolutionary issue of Politics and Culture 1 (2010).
http://www.politicsandculture.org/issues/2010-issue-1/.
Charvat, William. The Profession of Authorship in America. Edited
by Matthew J. Bruccoli. Columbus: Ohio State University
Press, 1968.
Darwin, Charles. The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to
Sex. 2nd ed. London: John Murray, 1874.
Davidson, Cathy, ed. Reading in America: Literature and Social History.
Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1989.
Dickinson, Emily. The Poems of Emily Dickinson: Reading Edition.
Edited by R. W. Franklin. Cambridge: Belknap Press, 1998.
Donne, John. The Poems of John Donne. Edited by Herbert J. C.
Grierson. New York: Oxford University Press, 1912.
Dutton, Denis. The Art Instinct: Beauty, Pleasure, and Human Evolu-
tion. New York: Bloomsbury Press, 2009.
Eagleton, Terry. “Darwin Won’t Help.” London Review of Books 31
(September 24, 2009): 20–21.
2/1/11 12:02 PM
 Elliot, Emory, Louis Freitas Caton, and Jeffrey Rhyme, eds. Aes- Wordsworth, William. Selected Prose. Edited by John O. Hayden. 1
thetics in a Multicultural Age. New York: Oxford University New York: Penguin, 1988. 2
Press, 2002. 3
Fink, Steven and Susan S. Williams, eds. Reciprocal Influence: Literary NOTES 4
Production, Distribution, and Consumption in America. Columbus:
5
Ohio State University Press, 1999. 1. Boyd discusses these works in On the Origin of Stories.
6
Freneau, Philip. Poems of Freneau. Edited by Harry Hayden Clark. Gottschall’s discussion of The Iliad appears in The Rape of Troy.
New York: Harcourt, Brace, 1929. 7
2. Dickinson, Poems, 215.
Gottschall, Jonathan. The Rape of Troy: Evolution, Violence and the 3. See, for instance, Vanderbeke, “Rhymes.” 8
World of Homer. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2008. 4. Miller, “Aesthetic Fitness”; Miller, Mating Mind. 9
Gumbrecht, Hans Ulrich. Production of Presence: What Meaning Can- 5. Wordsworth, Selected Prose, 283. 10
not Convey. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2004. 6. Freneau, Poems, 92. 11
Harmon, William, and Hugh Holman. A Handbook to Literature. 9th 7. Jackson, Dickinson’s Misery, 8. 12
ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 2003. 8. This paragraph summarizes work on the history of the 13
Hogan, Patrick Colm. Cognitive Science, Literature, and the Arts: A book in nineteenth-century American literature. See for instance 14
Guide for Humanists. New York: Routledge, 2003. Charvat, Profession of Authorship; Davidson, Reading in America; Fink 15
Holland, Norman N. Literature and the Brain. Gainesville, FL: The and Williams, Reciprocal Influences. 16
PsyArt Foundation, 2009. 9. To cite one representative instance, A Handbook to
17
Jackson, Virginia. Dickinson’s Misery: A Theory of Lyric Reading. Literature defines the lyric poem as “a brief subjective poem
Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2005. 18
strongly marked by imagination, melody, and emotion, and creating
Lamarque, Peter. “Aesthetics and Literature: A Problematic Rela- a single, unified impression” (Harmon and Holman, Handbook, 19
tionship?” Philosophical Studies 135 (2007): 27–40. 292). 20
Lauter, Paul. “Aesthetics Again? The Pleasures and the Dangers.” 10. Twain, Adventures, 59–60. 21
In Aesthetics in a Multicultural Age, edited by Emory Elliot, 11. Lamarque, “Aesthetics,” 30. 22
Louis Freitas Caton, and Jeffrey Rhyme, 197–213. New York: 12. Holland, Literature, 8; hereafter cited parenthetically as 23
Oxford University Press, 2002. Literature. 24
Miller, Geoffrey. “Aesthetic Fitness: How Sexual Selection Shaped 13. Darwin, Descent, 572. 25
Artistic Virtuosity and a Fitness Indicator and Aesthetic Pref- 14. Donne, Poems, 41. 26
erences as Mate Choice Criteria.” Bulletin of Psychology and 15. Vanderbeke, “Rhymes.” 27
the Arts 2, no. 1 (2001): 20–25. 16. Miller, Mating Mind, 63; hereafter cited parenthetically
28
———. The Mating Mind. New York: Anchor, 2001. as Mating Mind.
Sibley, Frank. Approaches to Aesthetics: Collected Papers on Philosophical 29
17. See Sibley, Approaches to Aesthetics; Brady and Levinson’s
Aesthetics. Edited by John Benson, Betty Redfren, and Jeremy Aesthetic Concepts: Essays After Sibley. Elliot’s approach to aesthetics 30
Roxbee Cox. New York: Oxford University Press, 2001. can be found in the collection of essays he edited with Caton 31
Twain, Mark. Adventures of Huckleberry Finn. Edited by Victor and Rhyme, Aesthetics in a Multicultural Age. Paul Lauter’s essay in 32
Fischer, Lin Salamo, and Walter Blair. Berkeley: University of that collection, “Aesthetics,” is an excellent example of this cultural 33
California Press, 2003. approach to aesthetics. 34
Vanderbeke, Dirk. “Rhymes without Reason? Or: The Improbable 18. Gumbrecht, Production, 2; hereafter cited parenthetically 35
Evolution of Poetry.” Politics and Culture, no. 1 (2010), http:// as Production. 36
www.politicsandculture.org/2010/04/29/rhymes-without- 19. Tara Mae Ebrahimian, a former student of mine, pointed 37
reason-or-the-improbable-evolution-of-poetry/. out to me the similarities of these two remarkable poets. 38
Whitman, Walt. Complete Poetry and Collected Prose. Edited by Justin 20. Whitman, Complete Poetry, 47.
39
Kaplan. New York: Library of America, 1982. 21. Hogan, Cognitive Science, 7–28.
40
41
42
43

andrew c. higgins 179

SP_TER2_22_171-179.indd 179 2/1/11 12:02 PM

 1 Poetry with an Evolutionary Twist
2
3
4
5
Book Under Review
6
7 The Best of It: New and Selected Poems
8 by Kay Ryan. Grove Press, 2010.
9
10
11 JUDITH P. SAUNDERS Scientists and humanists alike have good reason to value the work of recent Poet
12 Laureate Kay Ryan (2008–2010). Even those who typically do not spend much
13 time with poetry will notice and appreciate the strongly Darwinian strain in
14 her unusual lyrics. There are many unconventional aspects to Ryan’s career as a
15 poet, noted repeatedly by reviewers and interviewers following her unexpected
16 appointment to the most distinguished post an American poet can hold. Since
17 her work was thrust into public prominence, commentators from the world of
18 poetry have been quick to emphasize its novel features. Formally, Ryan works
19 with extremely short lines and produces work of marked compression; she is
20 committed (unfashionably) to rhyme—unpatterned, off-kilter, and often slant,
21 but insistent. She revels in wordplay, particularly the exploration of the complex
22 truths hidden in clichés and proverbs; she demonstrates a profound seriousness
23 laced with wit. Her poems are intensely felt and thus highly personal even
24 as they eschew autobiographical particulars. Often she begins with ideas or
25 abstractions; she is unafraid to sound an allegorical note. Working alone and
26 virtually without companions in the world of career poets, Ryan developed a
27 personal style and a voice that remained for many years overlooked, emerging
28 from obscurity relatively late in life. In keeping with her own deliberately cho-
29 sen privacy and independence, moreover, she has not hesitated to express open
30 skepticism about the value of MFA programs and creative writing workshops.
31 All in all, her role as loner and outsider seems to have added to the punch
32 packed by her uniquely crafted, intellectually intriguing poems.
33 Amid the flurry of commentary about a poet suddenly discovered to be
34 worth notice, what has gone almost entirely unmentioned is her obvious famil-
35 iarity with evolutionary biology. She employs its terminology and demonstrates
36 working knowledge of its principles: her poems make mention of the gene
37 pool, nondominant traits, Darwin’s finches, vanishing species, anatomical sports,
38 genetic information, and Lamarckism, to name just a few examples. She explores
39 the implications of living in a world shaped by natural selection, an intricately
40 balanced, “complexly / woven” ecology (“The Fabric of Life”). Focusing on
41 the jackrabbit, for instance, a “mild herbivore,” she observes that “rabbits are
42 one of the things / coyotes are for” (“The Hinge of Spring,”). She acknowl-
43

180 poetry

SP_TER2_23_180-182.indd 180 2/1/11 12:05 PM

 edges the predator-prey relationship flatly, expressing neither of the world / compete”—not only for survival, apparently, 1
sentiment nor regret. Coyotes have evolved to exploit an but for human attention. We persist in wondering exactly 2
environmental niche in which large rodents abound: they how and why nature operates as it does: “What does this 3
possess attributes selected to enable them to kill and eat mean / and how does it work?” Our complicated men- 4
jackrabbits. From an evolutionary perspective, one might tal apparatus persuades us that the phenomena around us 5
say, this is what they are “for.” Ryan does not leave matters cannot be “adequate” or “complete” until our intelligence 6
here, however; she notes that the rabbits themselves, how- has comprehended their workings or our aesthetic sense 7
ever “mild,” are destroying vegetation, “abridging spring” appreciated their designs. 8
by “eating the color off everything.” When the jackrabbit What we learn from studying our fellow inhabitants 9
population decreases as a result of predation, the vegeta- on Planet Earth, Ryan reminds us, is that nature does not 10
tion experiences a concomitant resurgence. Ryan ties the select traits for reasons of ethics, cuteness, or lovability: 11
death of a single rabbit (“one quick scream, / a few quick 12
thumps”) explicitly to the renewal of desert plants: “a whole . . . the mediocres 13
little area / shoots up blue and orange clump.” Within the both higher and lower 14
span of ten short lines, the poet indicates that every form of are suppressed in favor 15
life has been selected for its capacity to thrive in a particular of the singularly savage 16
place and in relationship to surrounding organisms. Each or clever, the spectacularly 17
individual and each species, without exception, impinges pincered, the archest 18
on others for space and for food: environmental stability is of the arch deceivers 19
achieved as a result of constant life-and-death competition. who press their advantage 20
“When any strand” of interrelationship “snaps,” the results without quarter even after 21
reverberate far beyond the immediate “locus of rupture,” they’ve won . . . (“Bestiary”) 22
demonstrating how “far beyond” human imaginings every- 23
thing on earth indeed “connects” (“The Fabric of Life”). “Best,” she concludes, “is not to be confused with “good.” 24
Ryan regards interspecies competition with interest, Throughout the natural kingdom, savagery and deception 25
sometimes with amazement, discovering a terrible beauty in (manifest in adaptations such as weaponry and mimicry) are 26
the struggle for existence. To feed its “hungry ugly” hatch- tactics with proven effectiveness. Because selection utilizes 27
lings, for instance, the male osprey seizes fish right out of the principle of “economy,” rejecting the merely “decora- 28
the water with his huge talons, “riding four-pound salmon” tive,” there is no place in nature for nonfunctional gentle- 29
back to the nest (“Osprey”). The fish, Ryan explains, do not ness, intelligence, or honesty (“Sheep in Wolves’ Clothing”). 30
die instantly; they are delivered live to the chicks. “They “Every bluff must / promote good,” she slyly asserts, empha- 31
get / all the way there before they die, so muscular and sizing that evolution operates on the “true wolf principle”: 32
brilliant / swimming through the sky.” The strange spectacle “good” is synonymous with self-interest, “which means / 33
of a fish “swimming” in a different medium, experiencing you eat what you’ve fooled.” 34
the ride of its life, so to speak, even on its way to death, Ryan understands, too, that even the most successful 35
becomes an effective metaphor in Ryan’s effort to commu- designs are jury-rigged rather than the product of deliber- 36
nicate the exhilaration of living in this world—a world rife ate intention. In a poem titled “We’re Building the Ship as 37
with cruelty but not without compensating rapture. “The We Sail It,” she describes via analogy the process by which 38
things of this world / want us for dinner,” yes, yet humans advantageous traits develop incrementally over time. Since 39
are passionately engaged with the workings of the planet existing forms and behaviors developed “in extremis,” that 40
they inhabit (“The Things of This World”). “Wherever the is, in response to immediate but unstable environmental 41
eye lingers / it finds a hunger”; inevitably “the appetites pressures, odd shapes or awkward designs are “hard to hide 42
43

judith p. saunders 181

SP_TER2_23_180-182.indd 181 2/1/11 12:05 PM

 1 later.” Pursuing the analogy implicit in her title, she explains vanishes.” In “Snake Charm,” Ryan turns to the human
2 the moment-by-moment exigencies of evolutionary process: propensity for making art, pointing to a snake’s patterned
3 skin, potent poison, and method of locomotion to articulate
4 The first fear her ideas about poetry. The snake is “a three-inch inspiration
5 being drowning, the full of / genetic information” about the incipient poem.
6 ship’s first shape It possesses the “muscles” necessary for “compression,” and
7 was a raft, which its “endless pattern” of “generative rhyme” is “repeatable
8 was hard to unflatten over a whole . . . without tedium.” Paradoxically, this snake
9 after that didn’t “improves everything it catches” since everything it swallows
10 happen. . . . is, necessarily, “converted to stripes / or diamond patches.”
11 Like this three-inch snake, Ryan’s own poems are small
12 Surrounded by an incredible array of phenomena, by turns but powerful, well able to draw readers inside their often
13 amusing and horrifying, that obviously could have been built frightening but always compelling muscularity.
14 better if precise blueprints had been drawn up in advance, Focusing on central questions of existence, Kay Ryan’s
15 we inhabit a world that persistently provokes ironic laughter. poetry invites a wide audience. Readers grounded in any
16 Frequently Ryan mines her understanding of evolu- discipline will find her poems intellectually gritty and sub-
17 tionary principles for analogies that illumine features of the stantial, yet appealingly accessible. Those bringing an evo-
18 human psyche. Musing on the development of personality, lutionary perspective to her work, in particular, will find
19 she notes how individual characteristics frequently grow themselves drawn to her wryly playful, ruefully sardonic
20 ever more well defined over the course of a lifetime: “it’s not speculations about life on earth. Constant change is an
21 uncommon / to see nondominant / traits diminish / and inescapable law, she keeps reminding us. Floating down the
22 the self stray / toward the cartoonish” (“Galápago”). Like an river of life, “we notice . . . the changing scenes / along the
23 evolving species, the individual self acts as if “not everything shore” with apparent calm—when all the while our self-
24 was / going to stay affordable.” Personal identity resembles a deceiving brains are busy warding off anticipatory knowl-
25 tiny island, locus of “a stylized struggle” whose outcome— edge: “We do / know this is the / Niagara River, but /
26 death—is certain. On the way to extinction, however, each it is hard to remember / what that means” (“The Niagara
27 individual chooses, hoards, and flaunts a few cherished char- River”). This poet is an outsider who is very much part of
28 acteristics (“finches”): “the few brighten / while the species the Darwinian camp.
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43

182 poetry

SP_TER2_23_180-182.indd 182 2/1/11 12:05 PM

 The Boy from Haiti 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
RUTH PADEL An extract from a forthcoming book of prose and poetry, The Mara Crossing, on 10
animal migration and human immigration, Chatto and Windus, 2012. 11
12
The world is always moving, always changing, and so is the life in it. 13
The word migrate is related to change and comes from the Latin migrare, 14
“to move from one place to another.” Dictionaries relate it to “mutable,” and 15
to the Greek verb ameibein, “to change.” Migration is a changing of place by 16
which you may also change the place you come to. 17
Behind every migration a thousand factors are at work, but the back- 18
ground cause of all migration is the spinning of the world and our planet’s 19
tilt. As the globe rotates, temperatures drop in different places, food vanishes 20
under snow and ice, and life moves to where it can find food, and also find 21
warmth and safety. 22
This may be simply down a mountain, or over the sea to a spot six 23
thousand miles away. Migration is a response to changes outside, changes in 24
the world. Its evolutionary point is survival. 25
But there are inner causes of migration too, changes in the life-form as 26
well as the world outside. Living things are restless, always changing, always self- 27
renewing. A cell makes protein, which is part of its own fabric, then dismantles 28
it and starts again. That is metabolism, which creates energy. Cells use that 29
energy to respond to whatever they feel is around them. They reproduce, they 30
claim space and then more space, moving out into what they are adapting to. 31
They set off on the adventure of self-replication as if they knew God said on 32
the fifth day of creation, or someone would say He said, Go forth and multiply. 33
34
John James Audubon was a double immigrant, the illegitimate child of a French 35
naval officer and a Creole chambermaid from Louisiana. He was born in 1785 36
in Haiti, then called Saint-Domingue, a French colony whose sugar and indigo 37
plantations, worked by half a million African slaves, supplied two-thirds of the 38
overseas trade for Revolutionary France. His father owned one of those planta- 39
tions. His mother died when he was small, his father sold the plantation just 40
before the outbreak of the slave rebellions that transformed the island. He took 41
the little boy to Nantes in France, where he and his wife formally adopted him. 42
43

ruth padel 183

SP_TER2_24_183-185.indd 183 2/1/11 12:03 PM

 1 Growing up in Nantes through the French Revolu- farm on Perkiomen Creek near Valley Forge, Philadelphia,
2 tion, the boy loved wandering in the woods and often came which he had bought with the plantation money.
3 back with birds’ eggs and nests, to draw. His father encour- The ocean crossing was full of uncertainty and sor-
4 aged him. He used to point out to his son, Audubon said row, but even that was lightened by a flock of migrating
5 afterwards, “the elegant movement of the birds, the beauty birds. In Perkiomen Creek, by tying strings around the legs
6 and softness of their plumage. He called my attention to of his beloved Eastern Phoebes, Audubon proved that they
7 their show of pleasure or sense of danger, their perfect forms returned to the same nesting sites each year: the first known
8 and splendid attire. He would speak of their departure and bird-banding experiment in America. Long after, in 1820,
9 return with the seasons.” as he was gliding away from his wife and children on the
10 Perhaps birds expressed something to the boy about Ohio River, off to Europe to try to publish his bird draw-
11 his own first migration. “I felt an intimacy with them,” he ings there, he wrote in his journal, “Hopes are shy birds,
12 said later, “bordering on frenzy.” flying at a great distance.”
13
14 As in all migration studies, displacement is a key word here: Maybe birds, who belong in more than one world, say
15 that movement of mind in which emotional intensity, gener- things to those of us who care to study them—things we
16 ated in the psyche by anxiety, perhaps, or loss, migrates into cannot otherwise find to say—about ourselves and what
17 something outside. Some thing that is not the self—nature, we long for.
18 in this case, but it could be train-spotting, dinosaurs, words In wilderness, said Thoreau, is the preservation of the
19 or paint—seems suddenly to matter more urgently than the world. Through empathy with nature, in our movements of
20 self. Charles Darwin was eight when his mother died: he displacement outward from the self (for whatever personal
21 repressed all memory of her and his passion turned to col- reason, and different for each one of us, perhaps), we see
22 lecting things: stones, coins, insects. Collecting and placing ourselves with nature and in nature; and save ourselves, too.
23 in order tames the unbearable by summoning found things
24 into one place: making, like Orpheus, a system against loss.
25
26 “Studying birds,” says Audubon’s biographer, “was how he
27 mastered the world, and himself.”
28 But Audubon wanted more than just to study birds.
29 From boyhood, he wanted to represent, to make into art
30 the nature his heart had chosen to love so passionately.
31 Long after, while watching a pair of Eastern Phoebes nesting
32 in America, he realized, he said, “that nothing could ever
33 answer my enthusiastic desire to represent nature than to
34 attempt to copy her in her own way, alive and moving!”
35 But though his father encouraged the boy’s passion
36 for birds, he intended him for a naval career and sent him
37 to military school. Audubon hated it. As a cabin boy, he was
38 terribly seasick. (Like Darwin, on the Beagle.) He failed his
39 officer’s qualifications and eventually went back to exploring
40 the woods around Nantes. In 1803, fearing his conscription
41 in Napoleon’s wars, his father sent him to America, to a
42
43

184 poetry

SP_TER2_24_183-185.indd 184 2/1/11 12:03 PM

 Hopes Are Shy Birds Dunlin 1
2
He’s eighteen, flying conscription, Light around the body. Moving on 3
abandoning La France. On open sea, to wetland beyond full moon, next 4
Earth’s rim like he’s never seen it, a blurred water-and-feed, ease of hot muscle 5
purple brush-line on aquamarine. and breath in a shrinking breast. 6
7
“Deep melancholy.” Thinking of those he left behind. The V. My wing pushes down 8
“The world seemed a great wilderness.” making upwash off the tip—which he, 9
Haiti at three, the forests—and now this. my neighbour, taps, and gets his lift for free. 10
Grey rain on speckled waves Energy, flock, energy is everything. 11
12
kisses its own reflection. He can’t remember Windflow. Moonshadow. Ground below. 13
leaving Saint-Domingue. Wherever he’s been, The rocking dark protects. Over desert, 14
he’s watched birds. He reads La Fontaine not to over-heat, we take rock-cover 15
and scatters ship’s biscuit on deck. through the day. In air, we keep in touch 16
17
Like shafts from winter sun, a flock calling. Insects, estuary, rest. Take off again. 18
of migrating titlarks, brown pipits, fall Like that torn carob leaf, floating from shallow 19
from the heavens. “They came on board beyond the headland into open sea, between 20
wearied. And so hungry.” Then suddenly its own reflection and white-spun meridian. 21
22
a shore—and a forest. He knew it. Birds unlock 23
everything. An inlet, wide, deep 24
and certain. Cries of gulls 25
above East River docks. 26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43

ruth padel 185

SP_TER2_24_183-185.indd 185 2/1/11 12:03 PM

 1 Verse
2
3
4
5 Universal? Adaptive? Aversive?
6
7
8
9
10 BRIAN BOYD “Poetry” has no rhyme in English. Even for many literature students, the first
11 near-rhyme for “poetry” to leap to mind might well be “lavatory,” a space
12 where they’d rather not linger. They just don’t “get” poetry, they confess: verse,
13 what could be worse? Yet even those who profess not to understand poetry
14 enjoy rhymes in rock songs, aggressive rhythms in rap, and playful alliterations
15 and puns in advertising and headlines. They and others enjoyed nursery rhymes
16 and schoolyard chants and rhyming games when they were children, and will
17 pass some of them on to their children.
18 How might an evolutionary account of poetry explain both the strong
19 human predisposition to discrete elements of poetry and the widespread resis-
20 tance to their combination in “pure” or literary poetry?
21 We could pose the question another way. No one without neurological
22 impairment will confess to not “getting” stories. Evolutionary literary theory
23 and criticism have focused much more on narrative, and especially fiction,
24 than on verse, and several evolutionary theorists have proposed storytelling as a
25 human adaptation.1 They claim, in other words, that narrative in general or fic-
26 tion in particular shows evidence of special design in humans, design that offers
27 survival and especially reproductive advantages. Might verse too be adaptive?
28 As I answer this question I want to suggest that evolution can offer a
29 more searching and comprehensive perspective than any other on the study of
30 literature in general and poetry in particular, and that it does not repudiate but
31 welcomes and amplifies both traditional socially learned literary expertise, and
32 scientifically psychological approaches such as the cognitive, the developmental,
33 and the existential.
34
35 In On the Origin of Stories: Evolution, Cognition, and Fiction (2009), I argue that
36 the arts have arisen out of our special motivation to play not only in physi-
37 cal form, as many species do, or in social forms, as highly social species such
38 as canids and cetaceans do, but also in mental forms, as humans uniquely
39 do. To encompass all art, from infant to adult, from lullabies to Lutoslawski,
40 I define art as cognitive play with open-ended pattern. Detecting patterns
41 within information enables minds to understand their environment efficiently.
42 When recording devices track acoustic frequencies to analyze speech sounds
43

186 poetry

SP_TER2_25_186-196.indd 186 2/1/11 12:03 PM

 objectively, they show continuous variation between distinct adults, play with language patterns not only pervades the 1
but related phonemes (b and p, for instance) and continuous verbal arts, drama, verse, song, fiction, and comedy from sit- 2
sound production across what we hear as syllable and even com to standup, but regularly hooks attention in advertising, 3
word breaks. Yet even infants, even children not yet born, brand names, book titles, graffiti and headline-writing; in the 4
filter out the informational noise that tape recorders cannot persuasive arts of political and other debate; and, in sheer 5
help registering and begin to extract the patterns of phone- humor, to relax social tension and allow social lubrication. 6
mic distinctions in the language of their birth environment.2 We have a high sensitivity to pattern in language and 7
Our compulsion, from infancy, to play with patterns a high inclination to play with language. But although these 8
in the domains of sound, sight, and social information, our are central to verse, they are not unique there. Play with 9
key information modes, gives rise to music, the visual arts, verbal pattern can be artful wherever we find it, in the most 10
and fiction, from pretend play to Homeric or Hollywood successful of brand names, Coca-Cola, or the dandruff sham- 11
epic. Music, visual art and fiction, I suggest, are adaptations. poo Head and Shoulders (head and shoulders above other 12
Our motivation to engage in them from the nursery to the products that also try to keep dandruff off your head and 13
rest home ensures that we refine our ability to produce and shoulders), or the headlines that catch our eye and perhaps 14
process patterns in our most powerful information systems. haunt our memories by reworking familiar phrases. I will 15
We incrementally fine-tune our neural wiring through our never forget, much as I’d like to, the headline of a review 16
repeated and focused engagement in particular arts. of a book about prostitution: “Slut Machines.” 17
If vision and hearing are our richest senses, and social Patterns beyond the norm, patterns that violate expec- 18
cognition our most highly evolved form of thought, lan- tations, compel us from childhood and extend our verbal 19
guage offers us our most powerful and precise form of reach, from babbling to nursery rhymes and beyond. They 20
communication. It would be surprising if our disposition also attract our attention as adults. The many manifestations 21
to play with pattern did not also manifest itself in language. of patterned play in language across time, place, and life stage 22
And in fact we have a strong motivation to play in this suggest that we have an evolved human predisposition for 23
domain. Infants babble at a few months old. A few months play with the patterns of language. 24
later, adults engage them in the rhythmic, multimedia turn Nevertheless I suggest that our language play may 25
taking that developmental psychologists call proto-conversa- not constitute an adaptation of its own. It derives from 26
tions, and that Ellen Dissanayake and David Miall rightly see the common animal predilection for pattern and the even 27
as a precursor of art and especially poetry.3 Children prog- more marked and more widespread animal predisposition 28
ress to nursery rhymes (“Hickory dickory dock”), rhyming to play, and from the human fusion of these that has led 29
games (“Ring-a-ring o’ rosies”), challenges (“A pinch and to what I have proposed as the key adaptation behind art, 30
a punch for the first of the month”) and taunts (“Tell-tale our unique human motivation to play with pattern. Our 31
tit, your tongue will split, And all the little puppy-dogs will predisposition to play with the patterns of language helps 32
have a little bit”). They pass through a stage of enjoying fine-tune minds in language acquisition and use. That may 33
the puny puns in candy wrappers and Christmas crackers. be an evolutionary by-product, since the motivation to play 34
The developmental evidence shows that play with verbal with pattern seems to have established itself in visual art 35
pattern begins early and suggests that it forms an essential and music, and quite probably in mime, several hundred 36
part of our acquisition of rich verbal skills.4 I anticipate thousand years ago, before modern human language.5 37
that research on the correlation between children’s verbal To play with the patterns of language may have 38
play and their performance in adult language will confirm needed no extra cognitive design. But given that the 39
that suggestion. capacity to handle language well would have been strongly 40
Verbal play does not stop in childhood. From ado- selected for, there may have been additional tweaking of 41
lescence we develop a special interest in love songs. For motivational systems to produce an especially strong or 42
43

brian boyd 187

SP_TER2_25_186-196.indd 187 2/1/11 12:03 PM

 1 an especially focused predisposition to play with words.
2 Whether this occurred or not, and whether our play with
3 language therefore involves an additional adaptation or
4 remains simply a by-product that plugs language into an
5 existing predisposition for play with pattern, needs to be
6 tested empirically, if we can find ways to do so.
7 Apart from the obvious individual developmental
8 advantages of mastering language, our inclination to play
9 with verbal pattern may also have yielded social advantages
10 even before the advent of verse. Proverbs, ubiquitous
11 across cultures, constitute a kind of proto-poetry. Refined
12 collectively rather than individually, they become attention-
13 catching, efficiently compact, and memorable through play
14 with pattern in multiple modes. Take “A stitch in time saves
15 nine.” Only a third the length of a haiku, this proverb has
16 many of the hallmarks of verse: sound patterns, alliteration
17 (stitch-saves) and assonance (time-nine); rhythmic pattern, in
18 the iambic stress of “A stitch in time saves nine,” with a partial
19 stress on “saves” interestingly modulating the regularity; the
20 imagination-activating concreteness of “stitch,” and its surprise
21 conjunction with the abstract “time”; the defamiliarizing,
22 slightly misleading “stitch in” (as if it might continue “stitch
23 in cloth,” say, or “stitch in that hem”), which, I suspect,
24 was what made me ask my mother to explain the proverb
25 when I first heard it; the economy, in the ellipsis of “nine”
26 (rather than “nine stitches,” or “nine more”), which itself
27 exemplifies the economy of time the proverb recommends.
28 But proverbs reflect not only internal patterns of language but
29 also patterns in life useful in shaping decision and action: here,
30 that attending promptly to a problem may spare much more
31 effort in future. Proverbs supply behavioral rules of thumb
32 in compact and memorable forms—forms that can therefore
33 be easily recalled and quickly dispensed on the fly because
34 their concreteness activates and resonates in our imaginations.
35 Children’s verbal play, like much of their pretend
36 story play, tends to be fanciful and nonsensical. Within
37 the security of adult supervision or the safety of human
38 settlement, children can explore widely and freely. Adults
39 must confront the real world. Especially in ancestral
40 environments and oral cultures, although even in modern
41 print- and screen-saturated worlds, proverbs have provided
42 an arresting, efficient way of preserving, compacting, and
43
188 poetry
SP_TER2_25_186-196.indd 188
relaying knowledge. In cultures like the Kuranko of Sierra
Leone, the ability to quote the appropriate proverb at the
right moment is prized as a sign of wisdom,6 and surely
this was so elsewhere before formal schooling became the
norm. Unlike poetry in modern cultures, which prize
innovation and individuality, and unlike the messages passed
on in the game of telephone or Chinese whispers, which
disintegrate comically in the course of repeated transmission,
proverbs have been handed on and honed collectively to
maximize their accuracy, memorability, and transmissibility.
Societies have presumably benefited from having their values
encapsulated and shared in rapidly, reliably reproducible
form, while individuals have earned esteem for their store
of apt apothegms.
Proverbs take to a high pitch the play with patterns in lan-
guage and life that we also find in verse, and their efficiency
in passing on shared values may well have offered adaptive
advantages. But verse is more specific than play with verbal
pattern. Although verse exists across cultures, it seems less an
adaptation in itself than a specific cultural device—a “good
trick,” in Daniel Dennett’s term,7 a trick good enough to
have found its way to cultures around the world, or perhaps
to have been repeatedly discovered independently. All verse
depends on line length, on lines that usually take two to
three seconds to utter—according to one explanation, the
length of the human auditory present, our capacity to hold
a sequence of sounds in our head at once;8 according to
another, the size of working memory, which can cope with
five to seven different chunks of information.9
The only common feature of verse across languages
is that in verse, the poet determines where lines end. In
casual conversation, by contrast, length of utterances are
shaped unpredictably by content, turn-taking conventions,
the assurance and enthusiasm of speakers, and their sensi-
tivity to auditors’ reactions. In prose (not the same as con-
versational speech, pace Molière’s Monsieur Jourdain), line
length is entirely incidental, determined only by the relative
size of handwritten, printed, or pixilated characters, pages or
screens, columns and margins. We can reset poems as prose
by removing the line ends that the poets have determined.
We could take a newspaper or encyclopedia article, or even
2/1/11 12:03 PM
 an essay by a great prose stylist, and arrange it as poetry, but speech, or through lineation in print—they can invite closer 1
it would be flat poetry. But if exactly the same words in scrutiny of each line. The slight lingering and the slight 2
the same order can be set as prose or poetry, what makes increase in emphasis at the end of the line, in the delivery 3
the difference? of an accomplished speaker of verse,14 or the blank on the 4
Poets control our attention by making us focus on page at the end of a line in written verse, offer a space 5
particular groups of words in one mental moment: as for assimilation, appreciation, reflection, and resonance. Verse 6
Cleanth Brooks and Robert Penn Warren write, the line is therefore tends to make the most of the line as a unit of 7
a “unit of attention.”10 Prose writers tend to focus primarily attention, by heightening the play with verbal pattern that I 8
on their subject matter, and will shape our attention only in have proposed we are adapted for, and the play with thought 9
so far as the content requires. But poets arrange lines (or the that human cognitive flexibility independently allows.15 Pat- 10
speech units rendered as written lines) so that each comes terns such as rhythm, rhyme, and syntactic or sonic paral- 11
under the undivided spotlight of our attention before we lelism, independently or together, serve to demarcate and 12
move to the next. Or, to switch from a visual metaphor to integrate lines of verse in different traditions: rhythm in 13
a more appropriate auditory one, since poetry began long Homeric hexameter or English blank verse, rhyme in many 14
before the invention of writing: poetry holds the mind’s European traditions, syntactic parallelism in Hebrew verse, 15
ear, in lines that take around three seconds to say. Poets of alliteration in old Germanic verse. Because the initial and 16
course have not known that they were constructing lines final sounds of words have particular cognitive salience, allit- 17
to fit the human auditory present, or the capacity of work- eration and rhyme are particularly prominent in traditional 18
ing memory, but that’s what they have discovered, by trial verse forms. Devices like rhyme not only accentuate line 19
and error, because that length holds human attention better, endings but also set up patterns between lines, particularly 20
more concentratedly, than longer or bitsier units. satisfying because the repeat rhyme sound echoes a previ- 21
Verse, in other words, employs language to fit a ous rhyme sound already just out of working memory but 22
humanly universal cognitive constraint. Controlling one’s available for swift recall and reinspection. (Repetition plays 23
attention matters for any conscious creature facing a world an even more prominent role in music and dance, the other 24
teeming with potential information, but in humans atten- most time-focused arts, and hence also in song, the fusion of 25
tion attains a unique importance. Unlike other species, we verse and music.) And because verse lines offer a controlled 26
value joint attention: from the age of nine or ten months, dose of information, poets in composing and audiences in 27
we check back and forth to see that others are attending to response tend to seek innovative images to invent or imbibe 28
what we want them to attend to.11 Sharing attention reaches during the slight pause that the line ends allow. 29
an unprecedented level in humans even before language; As we have seen, proverbs offer mnemonic advantages, 30
it makes language possible; and language in turn allows especially in pre-literature cultures, through their concentra- 31
the sharing of attention to things absent and even remote tion of patterns. So too does verse. Verse makes it possible 32
and unforeseen, hypothetical, counterfactual, or impossible.12 to control the rhythm of information release in longer texts, 33
And as in other primates, our ability to command the atten- while the patterns repeated from line to line offer a scaf- 34
tion of others also correlates with status.13 By fitting the fold of structure on which memory can reconstruct, and 35
cognitive constraint of working memory, poetry allows us therefore serve to recall and stabilize texts. The concen- 36
to release information in verbal bursts that reliably, repeat- trated patterns of rhythm and rhyme can aid in the trans- 37
edly direct the attention of an audience to fix exactly on a mission of longer texts, especially those of myths, legends, 38
specified segment of sense. No wonder this offers such an and religious or other lore or ritual felt to be important 39
advantage that it has become a cultural universal. enough to be passed on more or less exactly. The work 40
When poets focus audience attention on lines whose of Milman Parry and those he inspired shows prodigious 41
lengths they control—through pause and intonation in feats of memory accomplished by the bards of Yugoslavia 42
43

brian boyd 189

SP_TER2_25_186-196.indd 189 2/1/11 12:03 PM

 1 and elsewhere (Africa, Central Asia) who recited oral epics.
2 As Dirk Vanderbeke argues, the mnemonic advantages of
3 the transmission of socially shared information could have
4 been adaptive in group selection terms,16 bolstering social
5 cohesion through the reliable rehearsing of narratives incor-
6 porating and communicating shared knowledge and values.
7 Similar principles operate in ritual chant or song
8 (psalms, hymns, the songs of praise singers in African tribes).
9 The rhythmic patterns of verse can allow for emotional
10 attunement and physical entrainment. Emotional attunement
11 matters for any social species, and especially for ultrasocial
12 humans,17 and operates constantly through the changing
13 contours of narrative, amplified for many ancient bards and
14 modern filmgoers by accompanying music. Verse rarely lacks
15 any narrative element, and some, like the renowned Maori
16 warrior chief Te Rauparaha’s battle song “Ka mate ka ora,”
17 takes emotional attunement to levels of fierce intensity. Mere
18 physiological entrainment, attunement to rhythms, links us
19 to one another and imparts a confidence in ourselves even
20 at the individual level. Just as we walk more smoothly in a
21 steady rhythm, and perform group actions far better with
22 a steady shared rhythm (hence work songs for sailors, chain
23 gangs, and pot makers), so we feel enhanced pleasure and
24 control from the perception, even if unconscious, of regular
25 rhythm, and in most cultures we express and enjoy physical
26 entrainment to the rhythms of music in the form of dance
27 or clapping and tapping. We also notice with a new jab of
28 surprised attention a variation from the expected rhythm.
29
30 Even orally composed lines like Homer’s were regulated
31 by pattern—in his case especially by the rhythm of dac-
32 tylic hexameter. But when poets learned to write, they had
33 much more opportunity to maximize the play with pattern
34 in each line and the pause for assimilation afterward. Once
35 the slight pauses in time and the slight shifts in intonation
36 that demarcated spoken lines were rendered as gaps, as line
37 breaks in space, once they appealed also to our dominant
38 sense, sight, and once writers and readers could linger over
39 them as they chose, lines could become even more the
40 “units of attention” that Brooks and Warren specify. The
41 space around a poem’s lines, and perhaps even around its
42 entirety, if it is too short to sketch a story, may invite readers
43
190 poetry
SP_TER2_25_186-196.indd 190
to linger, whether for the cognitive challenge of a riddle,
from Babylon to Dickinson, or for the lingering emotional
reverberations of poems like haiku. Poets recognize the
competition for readers’ attention, and cannot track their
responses as they can those of live audiences. They need to
compensate to be sure of engaging their absent audiences
by multiplying the appeals to attention, especially should
they wish to forgo the emotional engagement that nar-
rative almost automatically supplies. They therefore appeal
to readers especially by the play of patterns at the level of
sound, word, and phrase; of thought, in images, metaphors,
generalizations and arguments; and of line units, stanzas, and
other higher-level forms.
Competition for readers encourages poets to maxi-
mize the attention-earning power of the line. Researchers
in the Daniel Berlyne and Colin Martindale tradition, pro-
ductive and empirically focused though it is, tend to stress
only the competition for attention through novelty.18 As I
have noted elsewhere, writers will strive to reduce composi-
tion costs—by borrowing and recombining, where they can,
ideas and devices that have worked for others—while maxi-
mizing composition benefits, by earning the most interest
and the richest response from those readers they care to
reach.19 Readers, on the other hand, may seek the compre-
hension benefits available at low search and comprehension
costs. That will mean, for some, the pleasure of reading a
familiar and therefore easy form, like rhymed poetry, dif-
ferent enough from everyday language to be worth spe-
cial attention, but not greatly demanding, perhaps even as
undemanding as greeting-card verse. For others it will mean
searching for more novel language and ideas.
The competition for attention will lead poets both to
invention, which can attract by novelty, and to the alterna-
tive, less costly in time and effort, the imitation of devices
already known to secure attention by concentrating the
patterns of the poetic line. What begins as innovation often
turns into convention. The search for added impact, for
instance, may distort normal usage in order to produce
patterns with proven success in the verse line, such as, in
English, inversion of the normal word order for the sake
of rhythm and especially rhyme, long after the decline in
grammatical inflections has reduced the flexibility of Eng-
2/1/11 12:03 PM
 lish word order. The quest for extra impact within the line, perspective to another, like that of successive moments of 1
as in the eighteenth-century search for diction out of the our past to each other and to the present or the future; 2
ordinary—and for iambs—may even lead to clichéd poetic or others’ perspective on us or anything else.20 That far- 3
devices, like such fancy periphrases as “the feathered tribe” reaching imaginative capacity has made it impossible for us 4
for birds or “the finny tribe” for fish. not to consider the world after our own death. Whatever 5
For some writers and readers, the establishment of apprehension we have about life, we know that we will face 6
conventions that seem to guarantee sufficient concentration a death we probably cannot control—short of suicide, hardly 7
for poetry will reduce search and comprehension time. For a preferable option—and that once dead we will no longer 8
others, the attempt to amplify impact within existing modes be able to exert any control: our bodies will be helplessly 9
will lead to highly patterned and highly charged poetry, subject to whatever forces happen to act on them. 10
making much of verse lines but at a cost too steep for many The recent psychological research tradition of Terror 11
to wish to pay. This repeatedly leads to reactions from poets Management Theory has shown the substantial effects on 12
who seek a fresh audience by challenging the innovations our thoughts and actions of reminders of our mortality. 13
that have hardened into conventions, either too easy or too “Mortality salience,” in their terms, leads especially to an 14
overloaded, and returning to an uncluttered, deconvention- increased desire for control, and a desire to earn esteem 15
alized, perhaps more direct and more honest-seeming line. within the parameters of the culture in which we live. We 16
seem to feel a commitment to an ongoing collective proj- 17
I have stressed the invitation to play and pattern that poets ect, and an enduring positive reputation within our society 18
naturally make within the confines of the poetic line. Now I offers us the best stay against the disintegration and oblivion 19
wish to introduce a new idea. Play normally takes place only of death. Terror Management Theorists plausibly propose 20
in conditions of security, and pattern provides a means of that human existential anxiety is a costly by-product of the 21
cognitive channelling of the incessant overflow of potential advantages of the human imagination and of our capacity 22
information. A desire for security and an anxiety at lack of to share symbolically with others both our apprehensions 23
control seem widespread in animals with flexible behavior in the face of death and the meanings we find in life to 24
and complex consciousness. But in humans the capacity for resist our lack of dominion over death.21 25
apprehension has swelled to vast proportions. Play, I have suggested, lies at the origins of art, and 26
Imagination seems to have evolved in order to offer an allows experiment with degrees of risk in situations of secu- 27
immediate biological advantage: to propose alternative sce- rity and control. Art, in its play specifically with pattern, 28
narios for possible action. In most animals with rudiments of offers a double measure of control: the activity or the work 29
imagination such scenarios presumably involve only immi- of art as decoupled or shielded from the ordinary activities 30
nent possible actions, but the human imagination can stretch of life, as pure play is; and the focus on pattern helps us learn 31
far further. That expansion of imagination—through brain to swim through the vast flux of information we face. Most 32
growth, through play, art, language, culture—has made com- poetry celebrates the power poets can exert within the line 33
plex long-term strategizing possible, in hunting, harvesting, and often within a more or less tight formal structure of 34
and much else, but it has also had the consequence that our a fixed number and pattern of lines. The imagination at its 35
minds can run through a host of possible scenarios, including freest asserts or at least demonstrates control, a line at a time, 36
many swarming with threats, dangers, mishaps. Superstitious a poem at a time. The line becomes a playpen, a place for 37
and religious attempts to ward off foreglimpsed dangers tes- the pen of the poet to play with patterns in language and 38
tify across cultures to the vivid force of human apprehension. life, a sanctum of control even should the poet choose to 39
As our imaginations have expanded, we have also address the subject of death and our ultimate loss of control. 40
become adept at metarepresentation: at entertaining mul- I should note that these formulations take me much 41
tiple perspectives and understanding the relationship of one of the way toward the explanation for art proposed by E. O. 42
43

brian boyd 191

SP_TER2_25_186-196.indd 191 2/1/11 12:03 PM

 1 Wilson and developed further by Joseph Carroll.22 Art has a
2 powerful role in providing a space in our lives where anxiety
3 about loss of control, and especially about the ultimate loss
4 of control in death, can be dealt with through the dem-
5 onstration and assertion of control possible in art—even in
6 recent art that chooses to incorporate the aleatory. I do not
7 think existential anxiety can explain the origin of art, but art
8 has surely been co-opted as a powerful way of coping with
9 this disturbing by-product of our expanded imaginations.
10 Let us take an example from Shakespeare’s sonnets.
11 The verse line, parcelling out just enough words to be
12 contained at one time within working memory, both reflects
13 a natural cognitive constraint and has an element of the
14 artificial about it, since, after all, time and consciousness
15 continuously move on. In most of his dramatic writing,
16 Shakespeare employs verse, but within the context of drama
17 naturally focuses on the forward flow of time and action.
18 That means that he almost always designs his dialogue to
19 highlight narrative structure and obscure its verse substruc-
20 ture. But in his sonnets he makes intense use of the line as
21 a unit, in poems designed to be read as units, as structures
22 or patterns of sense. Take sonnet 81.
23
24 Or I shall live, your epitaph to make;
25 Or you survive, when I in earth am rotten;
26 From hence your memory death cannot take,
27 Although in me each part will be forgotten.
28 Your name from hence immortal life shall have,
29 Though I, once gone, to all the world must die;
30 The earth can yield me but a common grave,
31 When you entombed in men’s eyes shall lie.
32 Your monument shall be my gentle verse,
33 Which eyes not yet created shall o’er-read,
34 And tongues to be your being shall rehearse,
35 When all the breathers of this world are dead.
36 You still shall live, such virtue hath my pen,
37 Where breath most breathes, even in the mouths
38 of men.
39
40 Writing in the 1590s and 1600s, Shakespeare could draw
41 on the current vogue for sonnets and sonnet sequences,
42 capitalizing on the interest and expertise of his audience,
43
192 poetry
SP_TER2_25_186-196.indd 192
but surprising them and earning a new kind of attention by
violating the expectation that the sonneteer would address
a beloved woman, a woman at least initially remote and
inaccessible. Instead, he mostly addresses a young man of
high station and striking good looks who has become a dear
friend, and perhaps a patron, of the poet. Here, as so often
in Shakespeare’s sonnets, the subjection of the poet and the
elevation of the addressee, typical of sonnet sequences from
Petrarch on, takes on a peculiar tinge.
The poem says little more than “although I will die
and be forgotten, your name will live as long as there are
people to read this poem.” But it says so again and again in
a way that advances the argument toward the triumphant,
death-defying affirmation of the final couplet, an affirma-
tion clinched by the high patterning of the final line, with
its two alliterations on b and three on m—its five words,
that is, starting with voiced bilabials, four of them on the
metrically stressed syllable—and its breath as noun repeated
but varied in breathes as verb, the two stressed syllables con-
nected by the additional unstressed voiced bilabial of most.
Not only does each line of the sonnet serve as a unit
of thought, so does each pair of lines, and so does each
of the first three quatrains. Indeed, each pair of the first
eight lines alternates between the survival of the addressee
(in life or memory) in one line and the oblivion awaiting
the speaker in the other, starting with the stark Or / Or
opening of the first couplet. Verbal patterns compound the
structural patterns: I-me-my / you-your contrasts saturate the
poem, as do live and cognates (life, survive, breathe) and die
and cognates (in earth, rotten, death, grave, entombed). Other
patterns of repetition also abound, like repetitions of word
and phrase (shall live, 1, 13; earth, 2, 7; from hence, 3, 5; all
the world, 6 and all the breathers of this world, 12; men, 8, 14;
eyes, 8, 10; breathers, breath, breathe, 12, 14).
Shakespeare does not hesitate to flout normal expec-
tations of English in order to maximize pattern, as in line
11, “And tongues to be your being shall rehearse.” Until
the twentieth century, poets writing in English have rarely
thought twice about disturbing the language’s increasingly
less flexible word order for the sake of the most prominent
pattern in English verse, rhyme: here, the inversion in “your
being shall rehearse” to obtain a rhyme with verse. So far,
2/1/11 12:03 PM
 so normal. But Shakespeare also violates idiom here, rehearse proclaims the name of the author of this “gentle verse.” He 1
your being having to mean, in context, something like “repeat knew this poem would mean his name “still” should live 2
aloud the account of your life in this verse monument to “Where breath most breathes, even in the mouths of men.” 3
your having existed,” with rehearse being chosen not only for A line like “And tongues to be your being shall 4
the rhyme but also for the additional pun on hearse, to join rehearse” demands a good deal even of native speakers of 5
the pattern of other spaces linked with death: in earth, grave, English, and would have done so already in Shakespeare’s 6
entombed, monument. Your being itself ignores usual idiomatic day. Especially for readers unused to the conventions of 7
constraints—it does not usually mean “your having been,” poetry, a succession of such lines, requiring high attention, 8
let alone “this account of your having been”—partly for the can be too high a cost to pay. Of course the expertise that 9
sake of the pronounced patterns of alliteration and assonance comes with reading swathes of verse lowers the cost for 10
in tongues to be your being. Tongues to be itself stretches those who particularly value its rewards,24 but even many 11
idiom far beyond expressions like “bride to be,” partly by lovers of poetry have over the years recoiled from Shake- 12
way of a bold synecdoche, the highly concrete tongue for speare’s sonnets—although other enthusiastic readers have 13
“person” (although the tongues will themselves also literally made this the most-loved collection of verse in English. 14
rehearse this verse monument to “your” existence). Tongues The opportunities and the demands of the verse line, 15
to be offers a particularly striking, vividly visceral prophecy and the singular focus of attention it invites by working 16
of those to come who will read of “you” even “When within the constraints of working memory, mean that verse 17
all the breathers of this world are dead”—another Shake- has often become overloaded with novelty, or, alternatively, 18
spearean transgression of verbal norms, another coinage, not subject to conventions for exploiting the constraints of the 19
only emphasizing how this verse will outlive everyone now line that have made freshness pall. Poets resisting the conven- 20
alive, but also stressing the pattern of mouths that leads from tions and the overchargedness of the verse line have often 21
tongues to be through “Where breath most breathes” to the sought to cleanse and revitalize it, as in William Carlos 22
final resonant “in the mouths of men.” Williams’s “The Red Wheelbarrow” (1923): 23
Shakespeare’s insistent play with pattern invites us to 24
play along, within the line, between line and line, within the so much depends 25
poem as a whole. His artistry, his boldness, and his assertion upon 26
of the power of art to outface and outlive the disintegra- a red wheel 27
tions of death, depend on his command of pattern, on the barrow 28
sense that, here at least, he and we can make and multiply glazed with rain 29
sense. From an evolutionary point of view we could note water 30
not only the play with pattern in Shakespeare’s art, and the beside the white 31
desire to cope with our ineluctable awareness of death, but chickens. 32
also his toying with our intense consciousness of status, and 33
our deep-rooted desire to resist the dominance of others. Williams’ poem may seem the opposite of Shakespeare’s, but 34
The universal human pattern of counter-dominance, of our it too aims at seizing readers’ attention through the unit of 35
wishing to assert our rights, where we can, in the face of the the verse line. It shocks those used to poetese, to the crowd- 36
dominance of others,23 wryly inflects this poem as it does ing of the line with pattern and distortions for pattern’s 37
so many of Shakespeare’s sonnets. He may profess subjection sake. It appeals to naked perceptions, it makes the most of 38
to the superiority of the fair youth, but although he writes, our customary expectation of more in a line or a poem by 39
“Your name from hence immortal life shall have,” he never inviting us to pause at each line end, in a moment like a 40
names the young nobleman, while “Shake-speares Sonnets” musical rest, while we linger over the words and the particu- 41
on the title page and every opening of the first edition lar perceptions they activate in our imaginations. The poem 42
43

brian boyd 193

SP_TER2_25_186-196.indd 193 2/1/11 12:03 PM

 1 resists our usual expectations of pattern and significance, and ———. On the Origin of Stories: Evolution, Cognition, and Fiction.
2 through the control of attention in the line invites us to Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press,
3 dwell on these concrete particulars, to see the particulars and 2009.
4 to reflect on them and on our seeing them. Williams invites Brooks, Cleanth, and Robert Penn Warren. Understanding Poetry.
4th ed. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1976.
5 us to hold on to particular moments and perceptions, and,
Brown, Steven. “The ‘Musilanguage’ Model of Music Evolution.”
6 implicitly, to recognize the power of a poem to have us share
In The Origins of Music, edited by Nils L. Wallin, Björn Merker,
7 these perceptions, at least in imagination, and to share our and Steven Brown, 271–300. Cambridge, MA: Bradford/MIT
8 sense of the value of holding on to perceptions, in face of Press, 2000.
9 the fleetingness of every moment, of all experience. Carroll, Joseph. “An Evolutionary Paradigm for Literary Study.”
10 Whether surcharged with pattern, like Shakespeare’s Style 42 (2008): 103–35.
11 sonnet, or stripped of almost all pattern but perception and ———. Literary Darwinism: Evolution, Human Nature, and Literature.
12 emotion, like Williams’ iconic lyric or a Basho haiku, poems New York: Routledge, 2004.
13 address working memory one line-burst at a time. Most ———.“Steven Pinker’s Cheesecake for the Mind.” Philosophy and
14 people find this delightful in the mid-range, from cradle Literature 22 (1998): 578–85.
15 song to love song, especially when coupled with the play of Carroll, Joseph, Jonathan Gottschall, John Johnson, and Daniel Kru-
ger. “Paleolithic Politics in British Novels of the Longer Nine-
16 verbal pattern that we instinctively enjoy, and with the sense
teenth Century.” In Evolution, Literature, and Film: A Reader,
17 of control that verse lines and their patterned play can give,
edited by Brian Boyd, Joseph Carroll, and Jonathan Gottschall,
18 from Humpty Dumpty’s sad end, through songs of romantic 490–506. New York: Columbia University Press, 2010.
19 heartbreak, to condolence verse or funeral dirge. But who Chance, Michael, and Ray Larsen. The Social Structure of Attention.
20 can wonder that many unused to ambitious verse find it London: Wiley, 1976.
21 taxing when poets’ competition for attention overloads the Dennett, Daniel C. Consciousness Explained. 1991. Harmondsworth:
22 line or, in reply, makes it seem too light to catch. Much of Penguin, 1993.
23 poetic enjoyment comes naturally to us, but high art often Dissanayake, Ellen. Art and Intimacy: How the Arts Began. Seattle:
24 asks—and gives—rather more. University of Washington Press, 2000.
25 Fauconnier, Gilles, and Mark Turner. The Way We Think: Conceptual
26 Blending and the Mind’s Hidden Complexities. New York: Basic
BIBLIOGRAPHY Books, 2002.
27
Goleman, Daniel. Social Intelligence: The New Science of Human Rela-
28
Arndt, Jamie, and Sheldon Solomon. “The Control of Death and tionships. New York: Bantam, 2006.
29 the Death of Control: The Effects of Mortality Salience, Neu- Hogan, Patrick Colm. The Mind and Its Stories: Narrative Univer-
30 roticism and Worldview Threat on the Desire for Control.” sals and Human Emotion. Cambridge: Cambridge University
31 Journal of Research in Personality 37 (2003): 1–22. Press, 2003.
32 Berlyne, Daniel E. Aesthetics and Psychobiology. New York, Appleton- Jackson, Michael. Allegories of the Wilderness: Ethics and Ambiguity
33 Century-Crofts, 1971. in Kuranko Narratives. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University
34 ———, ed. Studies in the New Experimental Aesthetics: Steps toward Press, 1982.
35 an Objective Psychology of Aesthetic Appreciation. Washington: Kohn, Marek, and Steve Mithen. “Handaxes: Products of Sexual
36 Hemisphere, 1974. Selection?” Antiquity 73 (1999): 518–26.
37 Boehm, Christopher. Hierarchy in the Forest. Cambridge, MA: Har- Konner, Melvin. The Evolution of Childhood. Cambridge, MA:
vard University Press, 1999. Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 2010.
38
Boyd, Brian. “Art as Adaptation: A Challenge.” Style 42 (2008): Landau, Mark J., Sheldon Solomon, Tom Pyszczynski, and Jeff
39 138–43. Greenberg. “On the Compatibility of Terror Management
40 ———. “Art, Innovation and Attention.” Empirical Studies of the Theory and Perspectives on Human Evolution.” Evolutionary
41 Arts 27 (2009): 141–45. Psychology 5 (2007): 476–519.
42
43

194 poetry

SP_TER2_25_186-196.indd 194 2/1/11 12:03 PM

 Martindale, Colin. 1990. The Clockwork Muse: The Predictability of Tomasello, Michael, M. Carpenter, J. Call, T. Behne, and H. Moll. 1
Artistic Change. New York: Basic Books. 2005. “Understanding and Sharing Intentions: The Origins of 2
———. “The Evolution and End of Art as Hegelian Tragedy.” Cultural Cognition.” Behavioral and Brain Sciences 28 (2005): 3
Empirical Studies of the Arts 27 (2009): 133–40. 675–735. 4
Miall, David S., and Ellen Dissanayake. “The Poetics of Babytalk.” Tooby, John, and Leda Cosmides. “Does Beauty Build Adapted
5
Human Nature 14 (2003): 337–64. Minds? Toward an Evolutionary Theory of Aesthetics, Fiction
6
Nakayama, Ken, and Julian S. Joseph. “Attention, Pattern Recogni- and the Arts.” SubStance 30 (2001): 6–27.
tion, and Pop-Out in Visual Search.” In The Attentive Brain, Tsur, Reuven. Poetic Rhythm: Structure and Performance—An Empiri- 7
edited by Raja Parasuraman, 279–98. Cambridge, MA: Brad- cal Study in Cognitive Poetics. Bern: Peter Lang, 1998. 8
ford/MIT, 1998. Turner, Frederick, and Ernst Pöppel. “Metered Poetry, the Brain, 9
Peskin, Joan. “The Development of Poetic Literacy.” Discourse Pro- and Time.” In Beauty and the Brain: Biological Aspects of Aesthet- 10
cesses 47, no. 2 (February 2010):77–103 ics, edited by I. Rentschler, B. Hertzberger, and D. Epstein, 11
Peskin, Joan, and David Olson. “On Reading Poetry: Expert and 71–90. Basel: Birkhäuser, 1988. 12
Novice Knowledge.” In Later Language Development: Typologi- Vanderbeke, Dirk. “Rhymes without Reason? Or: The Improbable 13
cal and Psycholinguistic Perspectives, edited by Ruth Berman. Evolution of Poetry.” Politics and Culture, no. 1 (2010), http:// 14
TiLAR (Trends in Language Acquisition) series, vol. 3. In www.politicsandculture.org/2010/04/29/rhymes-without- 15
press. reason-or-the-improbable-evolution-of-poetry/.
16
Pinker, Steven. The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature. Wilson, E. O. Consilience: The Unity of Knowledge. 1998. New York:
17
New York: Viking, 2002. Vintage, 1999.
———. How the Mind Works. New York: Norton, 1997. 18
Pöppel, Ernst. Grenzen des Bewußtseins. Stuttgart: Deutsche Verlags- NOTES 19
Anstalt, 1988. 20
Scalise Sugiyama, Michelle. “Narrative Theory and Function: Why 1. Pinker, How the Mind Works; Scalise Sugiyama, “Narra- 21
Evolution Matters.” Philosophy and Literature 25 (2001): 233–50. tive Theory”; Scalise Sugiyama, “Reverse Engineering”; Tooby 22
———. “Reverse Engineering Narrative: Evidence of Special and Cosmides, “Adapted Minds?”; Carroll, “Pinker’s Cheesecake”; 23
Design.” In The Literary Animal: Evolution and the Nature of Nar- Carroll, Literary Darwinism; Carroll, “An Evolutionary Paradigm”; 24
rative, edited by Jonathan Gottschall and David Sloan Wilson, Boyd, On the Origin. 25
177–196. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press, 2005. 2. Konner, Evolution of Childhood. 26
Shakespeare, William. Shakespeare’s Sonnets, edited by Katherine 3. Dissanayake, Art and Intimacy; Miall and Dissanayake,
27
Duncan-Jones. Arden, 3rd series. London: Thomas Nelson, “Poetics of Babytalk.”
28
1997. 4. Konner, Evolution of Childhood.
Sperber, Dan, ed. Metarepresentations: A Multidisciplinary Perspective. 5. Visual art: Kohn and Mithen, “Handaxes”; music: Brown, 29
Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000. “The ‘Musilanguage’ Model”; mime: Tomasello, Origins. 30
Sperber, Dan, and Deirdre Wilson. “A Deflationary Account of 6. Jackson, Allegories. 31
Metaphor.” In Handbook of Metaphor and Thought, edited by 7. Dennett, Consciousness Explained, 185–86. 32
Raymond W. Gibbs Jr., 84–108. Cambridge: Cambridge Uni- 8. Pöppel, Grenzen des Bewußtseins; Turner and Pöppel, 33
versity Press, 2008. “Metered Poetry.” 34
———. Relevance: Communication and Cognition. Oxford: Blackwell, 9. Hogan, Mind and Its Stories. 35
1986; 2nd ed. 1996. 10. Brooks and Warren, Understanding Poetry. 36
Tomasello, Michael. 1995. “Joint Attention as Social Cognition.” In 11. Tomasello, “Joint Attention.” 37
Joint Attention: Its Origins and Role in Development, edited by 12. Tomasello et al., “Understanding and Sharing Attention.”
38
C. Moore and P. Dunham, 103–130. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence 13. Chance and Larsen, Social Structure of Attention.
39
Erlbaum. 14. Tsur, Poetic Rhythm.
———. 2008. The Origins of Human Communication. Cambridge: 15. Fauconnier and Turner, Way We Think. 40
MIT Press, 2008. 16. Vanderbeke, “Rhymes without Reason?” 41
42
43

brian boyd 195

SP_TER2_25_186-196.indd 195 2/1/11 12:03 PM

 1 17. Goleman, Social Intelligence. 22. Wilson, Consilience; Carroll, “Steven Pinker’s Cheesecake”;
2 18. Berlyne, Aesthetics and Psychology; Berlyne, New Experimen- Carroll, “An Evolutionary Paradigm”; Carroll, Literary Darwinism.
3 tal Aesthetics; Martindale, Clockwork Muse. 23. Boehm, Hierarchy in the Forest; Carroll, Gottschall, Johnson
4 19. Boyd, “Art, Innovation, and Intention.” and Kruger, “Paleolithic Politics.”
20. Sperber, Metarepresentations. 24. For empirical studies of expertise in reading poetry,
5
21. Landau et al., “Compatibility”; Arndt and Solomon, see Peskin, “Poetic Literacy”; Peskin and Olson, “On Reading
6
“Control of Death.” Poetry.”
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43

196 poetry

SP_TER2_25_186-196.indd 196 2/1/11 12:03 PM

 Flowers Not Quite Evil 1
2
3
4
5
Book Under Review
6
Toxic Flora: Poems 7
by Kimiko Hahn. W.W. Norton, 2010. 8
9
10
MICHAEL LATORRA When is a butterfly not a butterfly? When it is an ancient Chinese philosopher? 11
No; when it is another species of flora or fauna using deceit to impersonate 12
a butterfly. And what is art, from a certain perspective, but the imposture of 13
one thing for another through artifice contrived by some human maker? The 14
maker of artifacts, the artist of words—the poet—performs such a feat with a 15
most economical use of raw materials: so few words to convey so much. Her 16
words are most carefully chosen so as to carry thoughts and feelings explicit 17
and implicit. The burdened words of poetry stack like a keystone arch, depend- 18
ently centered on a key word image or concept. For the poems in this col- 19
lection, Kimiko Hahn has chosen her keystones from news stories of biology 20
and astronomy published in the New York Times, which she cites in her notes. 21
Author of seven previous poetry collections, Hahn has chosen her tropes 22
from such creatures as Alcon blue butterflies, which deceive ants into caring 23
for their larvae, and the great auk, which was driven to extinction by human 24
greed for its feathers and the heedlessness that destroyed the very source of that 25
commodity. A reader already conversant with biology and evolution may not 26
learn anything new about those disciplines from Hahn’s work but will certainly 27
be amused by her musings on them. Her poems are not odes to nature, to be 28
sure. Nor are they didactic or moralistic lessons featuring industrious ants and 29
feckless humans. Hahn’s lyric nature poetry stands closer in spirit (if not form) 30
to Baudelaire’s Les fleurs du mal (The Flowers of Evil) in which the feeling poet 31
stands at the center of many a poem. 32
In the titular poem “Toxic Flora” Hahn describes how the chemical 33
defenses against insects evolved by the Passiflora aliriculata were co-opted by 34
the Heliconius butterfly, which adapted to the poisons and turned them into a 35
defensive weapon for itself on its egg-laying forays. She then goes on to wonder: 36
37
What does this demonstrate about toxins 38
or residence? 39
Or carrying around a portion of the childhood home 40
where the father instructs the daughter on the uses of poison 41
then accuses her of being so potent? 42
43

michael l a torra 197

SP_TER2_26_197-198.indd 197 2/1/11 12:03 PM

 1 With quick wit but little joy, Hahn takes the amoral savagery all change, in thoughts,
2 of nature in some of its oddest corners to stand for human life As well as things.
3 in some of its quirkier aspects. Musing on “The Origin of the
4 Head,” she describes this “sensory trap” having evolved from: The third path is explanatory, using the facts of nature as
5 would a human ethologist or evolutionary psychologist to
6 . . . the I want to eat you better understand oneself as a thinking, feeling, acting crea-
7 to the I want you. ture. This is a new path that, so far as I know, remains a road
8 Then to the popular, not yet taken. (Poetry is an open game, and I am certainly
9 I want you to want me. (Emphasis in original) not familiar with all of the players. If any poet has traveled
10 this way, I’d be interested to learn of it.) There is a world
11 What a poet chooses to do with the raw material of nature of difference between comparing one’s words to rocks and
12 for her poems is a very personal decision. Broadly speaking, delving into the brain, DNA, and evolutionary mechanisms
13 at least three paths are possible. The first path is descriptive that operate in deep obscurity. This obscurity might even be
14 of nature, with the poet glorying in its beauty or terror. For a feature of our evolved perspective, essential to our adaptive
15 example, consider William Wordsworth, who wrote: success. If we knew consciously how much of our supposedly
16 voluntary behavior was actually the work of deep neuro-
17 I wandered lonely as a cloud logical and genetic mechanisms, we might despair. Between
18 That floats on high o’er vales and hills, conference sessions at Arizona State University a few years
19 When all at once I saw a crowd, ago, noted evolutionary anthropologist John Tooby remarked
20 A host, of golden daffodils. . . . that he sometimes feels sad when thinking about how much
21 of his loving attention toward his own offspring must arise
22 For oft, when on my couch I lie from the promptings of his selfish genes.
23 In vacant or in pensive mood, It is perhaps unfair for a reviewer to focus on the sort
24 They flash upon that inward eye of writing the reviewer wishes a writer had done instead
25 Which is the bliss of solitude; of what the writer has actually done. Nevertheless, when
26 And then my heart with pleasure fills, addressing biological phenomena, Hahn could, I think,
27 And dances with the daffodils. deepen and enrich her poetry if she pursued this third
28 path. Instead of flowers and insects, she might contemplate
29 The second path is metaphorical or analogical. Here the poet great apes. Their evolutionary consanguinity to Homo sapiens
30 takes inspiration from a phenomenon of nature and presses it offers us a look into an only slightly distorted mirror.
31 into aesthetic service as an indirect analogue or direct meta- Hahn seems to have the necessary willingness to
32 phor for feelings and events from the poet’s own life expe- endure seeing the hard truths revealed on such a path, as
33 rience. So, for example, consider Gary Snyder’s “Riprap”: her poems already include references to lament, sorrow,
34 estrangement, pain and remorse. The absence, at least in this
35 Lay down these words collection, of references to pride, joy, friendship, pleasure, and
36 Before your mind like rocks. . . . happiness might indicate that she would be better off per-
37 Solidity of bark, leaf, or wall sonally if she did not confront too many of the hard truths
38 riprap of things: of our evolved psychology. Seeing one’s parental instinct as
39 Cobble of milky way, mere due diligence enforced by selfish genes can be rather
40 straying planets. . . . dispiriting. On the other hand, inquiring into the roots of
41 Granite: ingrained one’s behavioral motivations cannot fail to be illuminat-
42 with torment of fire and weight ing. In any case, I hope some poet will undertake a hero’s
43 Crystal and sediment linked hot journey into the darkling woods of evolutionary psychology.

198 poetry

SP_TER2_26_197-198.indd 198 2/1/11 12:03 PM

 fiction

fiction
1
2
3
4
5
Fiction 6
7
8
A Dialogue 9
10
11
12
13
14
15
BLAKEY VERMEULE An essay written in the spirit of Montaigne: to find out what I think.
16
17
18
Suppose you become curious about fiction—the concept, its history, its reasons
19
for being.
20
You decide to ask me, your friend the English professor, since I spend
21
my days in fiction’s deep thickets. While you worry that fiction’s deep thickets
22
have become, for me, a labyrinth, the request for information strikes you as
23
reasonable. Even simple.
24
Thus when I ask you, with what sounds like a sob, what you mean by
25
fiction, you cut me off: “All those books in the fiction section of the book-
26
store,” you say. “Help me out here. Give me a line, a clue, a way in. I want
27
the good stuff. You have been reading all this evolutionary psychology, right?
28
Hit me with the big bang, the cheesecake, the telescope. Why do we make
29
and consume so much of the stuff?”
30
“Okay,” I say (eyes blinking warily in the sunlight). “I will. Darwinian
31
thought is an enormously powerful tool for understanding our shared history
32
and fate—a universal acid, as Daniel Dennett rightly says, capable of cutting
33
through everything in sight. Since the 1960s, Darwinian thought has gained
34
powerful support from game theory and mathematical modeling. The so-called
35
modern synthesis has moved through the academic world like a slow flame,
36
burning a little here, annealing a little there. It has now become part of the
37
generally accepted background in experimental psychology, the discipline on
38
which humanistic inquiry nominally rests. Yet the arts and humanities have
39
remained fortified against it. In fact I’d go further. Remember that scene in
40
Monty Python and the Holy Grail where the knights try to ransack a French
41
castle?”
42
43

blakey vermeule 199

SP_TER2_27_199-205.indd 199 2/1/11 12:03 PM

 1 “Um, the Pythons were a bit before my time,” you say.
2 “The French soldiers inside hilariously taunt the
3 invaders. Then a cow carcass comes hurtling over the wall
4 from a catapult. That’s generally been the response from the
5 humanities. Fetchez la Vache! But literary Darwinism has not
6 yet delivered much in the way of good literary criticism
7 (and I include my own). Why not? Philosophers have an old
8 joke. The objection to any philosophy paper can be boiled
9 down to ‘yeah right’ and ‘so what?’ Literary Darwinism is
10 immune to the first objection (at least among people who
11 care about science) but it is vulnerable to the second. And
12 this is for several reasons. The first one—the one before
13 which all others tremble like a guilty thing surprised—is
14 that aesthetic experience is enormously resistant to ultimate
15 explanations. By which I mean explanations that lasso art
16 from a great distance. I have, for instance, a passion for
17 George Eliot’s novel Middlemarch. There is some feeling in it
18 that draws me in again and again and that sets off a depth
19 charge in my soul. Every time I read it I learn a little bit
20 more about its internal workings and language, which are
21 like the harmonies in a Wagner opera. I see a bit more
22 what George Eliot was trying to accomplish, the intensity
23 and passion of her vision. I increase what the philosopher
24 Richard Wollheim calls my ‘cognitive stock.’1 But the ulti-
25 mate horizon remains the novel itself, the beautiful enclosed
26 organ beating inside its fragile casing.”
27 “But surely,” you object, “you can distinguish between
28 how aesthetic experience feels to you and the interesting
29 features of it that science can explain. Shouldn’t the human
30 obsession with fiction be a problem for Darwinism? A Yale
31 psychologist recently claimed we spend roughly four minutes
32 a day having sex and hours and hours a day absorbed in
33 fictions.2 I guess this includes everything from our private
34 fantasies to the yarns we spin all day long to the mass-market
35 stories we consume like that greedy boy Augustus Gloop in
36 the candy factory. I read a news story about a young couple
37 in Korea who spent so much time taking care of their vir-
38 tual infant in a simulation game that their own baby died of
39 neglect. How could that contribute to their inclusive fitness?”
40 “Yes to both points,” I agree. “Fiction-obsession is
41 indeed a strange problem. Jared Diamond wrote a book
42 a few years ago called Why Is Sex Fun? You would think
43 that that was the only topic that needs no explanation,
200 fiction
SP_TER2_27_199-205.indd 200
evolutionary or otherwise. Fiction probably does. The case
of the Korean couple is most likely what the naturalist
Niko Tinbergen called a ‘supernormal stimulus,’—an exag-
gerated version of a stimulus that produces a maladaptive
response. He first noticed it when his pet stickleback went
into fight mode whenever the red mail truck drove past
the window outside his fish tank—red being the color that
male sticklebacks use to signal aggression.3 I have no doubt
that media saturation creates ever stranger and more super-
normal stimuli for us to get hung up on—pornography and
gaming being only two. Most Darwinians, when confronted
with some apparently useless trait or practice, suspect that
sexual selection is in play. You know—the peacock’s tail, the
handicap principle, an arms race of runaway selection pres-
sures, that sort of thing. The fussy drab female driving the
anxious plumed male to dance his ever more frantic jig. In
his beautiful book The Art Instinct, Denis Dutton gives more
or less that account of art’s lavishness, excess, and ornament.”
“What do you think?” you ask.
“I think he’s right in the macro sense, but I also
think there are a lot of details for fey little demons to lurk
around in. So what are you curious about exactly? Fiction
can mean stories we enjoy even though we know they aren’t
true, which covers a lot more than books. Or it can mean
the forms those stories come packaged in. The history of
movies, TV, novels, plays, and so on.”
(Now you start to look worried. Academics, you
think. Pretty soon she’s going to tell me that what fiction
means is up to me.)
“Or fiction can mean: the kinds of techniques that
creators of fictions use to work their magic, in which case
you need to settle on a specific medium. You know the
technique in film called shot/reverse shot?”
“Well,” you say, “I can imagine.”
“You’ve seen it your whole life. When two characters
are having a conversation, the camera cuts back and forth
from one face to the other. Why do you think directors
do that?”
“Obviously to mimic the back-and-forth of actual
conversation.”
“For a long time people thought so—they thought it
was naturalistic,” I explain. “One person holds the spotlight,
then the other, then the first, and so on. But eventually
2/1/11 12:03 PM
 people figured out that it isn’t naturalistic at all. Cutting “Of course they are. Movies have become fiction’s 1
back and forth is nothing like conversing, which is all preferred vehicle. Fiction means something broad and some- 2
about connecting. So then people started to think of it as thing narrow. Broadly it means ‘something made up, that 3
(merely) a convention. But the truth is more interesting. I know is made up, but that I am able to enjoy without 4
Shot/reverse shot is an artificial artistic code that seems worrying too much that it is made up.’ Narrowly it means 5
naturalistic because it fits so well with our underlying cog- made-up dramatic realist stories organized into scenes. 6
nitive architecture. David Bordwell makes a very detailed Those stories used to be told in prose. Now they are told 7
and persuasive argument on this point. Shot/reverse shot is in so many different media it makes your head spin. To 8
actually ‘quite unfaithful to perceptual experience,’ he writes. those who love it, prose is muscular and fancy, robust and 9
Simple panning from one speaker to the other would be vibrant. But in the rushing stream of image-based stories, 10
much more realistic. Instead filmmakers cut quickly back it is a stately moss-covered boulder.” 11
and forth between faces, using the ‘transfer of attention’ as “Wait, you said realist? Does that exclude, say, Harry 12
a substitute for panning—‘a substitute that has no exact Potter?” 13
correlate in ordinary perceptual experience.’4 “Harry Potter is made up, dramatic, and scene based,” 14
“Other departures from ordinary perception are also I respond. “And as for realistic—many of the techniques of 15
noteworthy. For instance, one person’s face is often shot realism are there—the scar of Odysseus—the scar of Harry 16
from behind the shoulder of the other person. And the Potter. Also it isn’t as if anything goes in the wizarding 17
camera typically shows each face in three-quarter view. world. The metamorphoses follow predictable laws of trans- 18
Shot/reverse shot delivers neither the experience of nor formation. But Harry Potter is missing a crucial element 19
a faithful picture of a face-to-face conversation. Neverthe- that so-called literary fiction now demands—” 20
less we accept the overall effect without effort or protest. “Oh dear, I’m really sorry I asked,” you say. “Back 21
Bordwell claims, I think correctly, that the choice of some to the question. Fiction has its own techniques—such as?” 22
artistic conventions is ‘weighted because human proclivities “It depends on the medium. Films do one thing, serial 23
favor them.’5 Shot/reverse shot is one such. Think of it as TV shows another, high-end literary fiction and mass-market 24
an alien spaceship gliding over a town and suctioning all thrillers something else. But despite the vast array of styles 25
the people and buildings into its belly. Different parts of and features, the architecture of fiction hasn’t changed very 26
our cognitive architecture are activated by the technique, much since the eighteenth century. It has just gotten more 27
but the technique itself is somewhat alien to us—at least it latticed. If anything, the pressure to create marketable char- 28
seems to be if you break it down into component parts.” acters has ratcheted up to an industrial level. And one tech- 29
“That’s really smart,” you say. “Can you tell me which nique that came online in the late eighteenth century and 30
features of our cognitive architecture are triggered by shot/ has never gone offline: free indirect style. The hallmark of 31
reverse shot?” fiction in the modern age.” 32
“I could, but you could just as easily go and read “What is that?” 33
Bordwell. He’s a fantastic writer.” “A technique for narrating a character’s thought from 34
“Okay, I’ll take the bait” (you sigh). “Does fiction do his or her point of view, but in the third person.” 35
something similar?” “What? That sounds strange and complicated.” 36
“Lots of things—and has done for much longer than “Well, when you try to break it down, it seems that 37
film in a medium that grabs people far less obviously. Film way. But on the page, it looks so natural that you can barely 38
is like Fred Astaire and fiction is like Ginger Rogers—she detect all the funny business underneath.” 39
does everything he does, except she does it backwards and “Can you give me an example?” 40
in heels.” “I’ll just take one from the critic James Wood. Here 41
“Please, just stop. But you’re mixed up. Surely movies are two pieces of reported thought. The first one is in 42
are also largely fictional—?” indirect speech of a character’s inner monologue: 43

blakey vermeule 201

SP_TER2_27_199-205.indd 201 2/1/11 12:03 PM

 1 “He looked over at his wife. She looked so “Okay, I’ll be direct,” I say. “My story mixes the infi-
2 unhappy, he thought, almost sick. He wondered nitely popular ‘geniuses-like-Jane-Austen-are-great-innova-
3 what to say. tors’ theory of historical causation with ruthless pragmatism.
4 But (and now shut your eyes because I’m going to whisper
5 “The second is in free indirect style. Note the changes in this to the reeds and I don’t want you to see the asses ears
6 tense and tone that free indirect style seems to demand: springing out of my head), fiction has a task, a life, a service,
7 a dedicated mission of its own. I mean that in every pos-
8 He looked at his wife. Yes, she was tiresomely sible essentialist sense. Fiction is a switch we’ve collectively
9 unhappy again, almost sick. What the hell should invented and refined and installed in the middle of our
10 he say?6 room. When we flip it, the current goes on. And we’re
11 addicted to the current.”
12 “Hmm, yes,” you say. “A shift from the simple past “Careful! You’re getting carried away!”
13 tense to future conditional. Also the guy sounds like a jerk “No, really. Fiction is a device for getting plights
14 in the second passage; not so much in the first.” into our midst. An extremely useful device. Because it gets
15 “Yes he does, rather, doesn’t he? That seems to be a behind our defenses. And we’ve got a lot of them.”
16 funny feature of free indirect discourse—the characters end “Such as?”
17 up sounding whiny, self-deluded, and nasty. My colleagues “In the spirit of Passover, I’ll answer a question with
18 hate it when I say this. They think I’ve got a corrupted soul. a question,” I say. “Last night you went out with your old
19 They also think that I’m cherry-picking my examples when work friends. What did you talk about?”
20 I point out the emotional patterns. They claim that free “Sports, of course. We had a big go-round about the
21 indirect style can be neutral—a way of reporting without World Cup Final, about whether Holland’s aggressive tac-
22 bias or shadow. My friends have a trump card to play: the tics were legitimate or dirty. We also talked about how the
23 last line of Virginia Woolf ’s Mrs. Dalloway.” Liverpool Football Club fell apart last year, how the coach
24 “Now you’re just showing off!” is a blame-shifting egomaniac, how the Portuguese striker
25 “Nope! That’s not the line! This is it: ‘For there she Cristiano Ronaldo is a gelled tumbler, how we hate Chel-
26 was.’ That’s Peter Walsh thinking about Clarissa Dalloway as sea but Manchester United is so much worse. That sort of
27 she appears on the stairs at her much-anticipated party. And thing.”
28 actually it is the first time in the novel that his thoughts “Holland made me ashamed of my heritage,” I say.
29 appear untwisted. Over and over again Woolf dips into Peter “Did you talk about anything else?”
30 Walsh’s thoughts to show him as a small, failed, jealous, “Our favorite TV shows. Lost. Mad Men. The Office.
31 bitter man. A man who soothes his anxiety by denigrating Movies we had seen. We kept it light.”
32 other more powerful men. He is a low-status primate in a “How about personal things—your families?”
33 slippery status hierarchy. Somehow the aggression and irony “No. My friend’s son has been in and out of rehab.
34 of free indirect style capture the feel of that.” Nobody wanted to bring it up,” you admit.
35 “Can you remind me why we are talking about this “Right,” I say. “We talk about sports and TV shows
36 exactly?” you ask. because most people find it difficult to talk directly about
37 “I’m trying to show you how certain techniques hard personal topics. So fiction is like the motor oil that
38 come to handle certain psychic material.” keeps our emotional engines from overheating. Which fact
39 “I’ll note the weaseling language,” you say. ‘Come has led intellectuals to shake their fists and cry ‘bread and
40 to handle?’ What’s your claim about historical causation circuses’ at the gladiatorial contests.”
41 exactly? How does a technique ‘come to handle’ psychic “Yeah,” you respond, “you intellectuals really need to
42 material?” lighten up. The Office and Mad Men and Manchester United
43

202 fiction

SP_TER2_27_199-205.indd 202 2/1/11 12:03 PM

 aren’t some squid-like tendril of the repressive state appara- “I skimmed it. Actually, I read the acknowledgments. 1
tus. Why can’t you people ever just enjoy entertainment?” Anyway, Kahneman and Amos Tversky, his collaborator, 2
“You people? You mean professors? Well, we get paid pioneered a field called behavioral economics.9 They show, 3
to frame hypotheses about other people’s fun. But let’s get basically, that Homo economicus, far from being a rational 4
back to the problem of fiction. Consider this paradox. One calculating machine, is really a goggle-eyed clown with red 5
of the best-attested psychology experiments of the last hair sprouting up in tufts and springs coming out of his 6
three decades shows that people are enormously sensitive neck. The standard model—rational agent theory, expected 7
to cheaters, people who promise to reciprocate fairly but utility theory—held that people were more or less ratio- 8
who violate their promise.” nal when they calculated risk. But we’re not. We represent 9
“Yes I know all about that,” you say. “Cosmides and the world through all kinds of cognitive frames, and these 10
Tooby have shown over and over again that humans have frames deeply shape the information we take in and how 11
evolved a ‘cognitive instinct’ for detecting violations of social we process it.” 12
exchange.7 It is like what the Supreme Court would call a “I’m sorry, but I’m losing the thread here . . . assum- 13
super-precedent. You think fiction falls into that category?” ing there is one,” I say (my turn to get snippy). 14
“It certainly has, on and off, in the three centuries “Kahneman and Tversky are part of a Copernican 15
of its official existence.” revolution in psychology that has been going on more or 16
“Can you give me an example?” you ask. less unimpeded since Freud. I mean the revolution to decen- 17
“Okay. Remember James Frey, the guy who wrote ter the rational self. Their contribution, prospect theory, is 18
the fake memoir about his drug addiction? David Shields only a small piece of a very deep iceberg. The iceberg itself 19
tells the story this way: is the unconscious. And the rational bits really only select 20
among different options.” 21
In the aftermath of the Million Little Pieces out- “Okay, but remind me. What is System 1?” 22
rage, Random House reached a tentative settle- “System 1 is all those processes that run outside of 23
ment with readers who felt defrauded by Frey. our conscious awareness. Intuitions of all kinds, gut feelings, 24
To receive a refund, hoodwinked customers had snap judgments, and so on. Dual-process theories of the 25
to mail in a piece of the book: for hardcover mind have been around for a very long time—in fact you 26
owners, it was page 163; those with paperback can find a fully worked out version in Plato’s Phaedrus if 27
copies were required to actually tear off the you want. But clearly System 1 doesn’t distinguish all that 28
front cover and send it in. Also, readers had to well between fiction and nonfiction—hence the Korean 29
sign a sworn statement confirming that they had couple and the baby. It is designed to make fast and frugal 30
bought the book with the belief it was a real judgments. So it is easily duped into thinking stories are 31
memoir, or, in other words, that they felt bad true. System 2 is computationally costly and requires a lot 32
having accidentally read a novel.8 more psychic effort.” 33
“Look, this is all fascinating,” I declare, “and I’d love 34
“Well that’s pretty easy to figure out,” you sniff. “For- to hear all your theories about Plato, but we’re running out 35
get Cosmides and Tooby. Random House was just paying of space here and as far as I can see, we’re going around 36
a ransom to System 2.” in circles. So I might as well just cut to the chase and tell 37
“What on earth are you talking about?” I ask. you what I think about fiction and evolution. 38
“You’ve read Daniel Kahneman’s Nobel laureate I am drawn to the macro views of William Flesch 39
address, right? I know you have because you quoted some in his 2007 book Comeuppance. He’s interested in how our 40
of it in your book.” complicated lives as reciprocal altruists shape narratives. 41
“You’ve read my book?” (small incredulous yelp). So many of our stories are about punishment, revenge, 42
43

blakey vermeule 203

SP_TER2_27_199-205.indd 203 2/1/11 12:03 PM

 1 malfeasance, and justice delivered that it seems as though reading a bit of sports fluff in the local paper. The story
2 part of their purpose is to sort out goodies from baddies. was about poor old doddering Al Davis, legendary but now
3 He gets to that conclusion by running a series of complex very elderly owner of the Oakland Raiders. A couple of
4 arguments about evolutionary game theory. One objection years ago he drafted JaMarcus Russell, who is turning out
5 is that his model leaves out those stories, such as romances, to be one of the most expensive flops in NFL history. Al
6 that don’t turn on anybody’s being punished. He replies that Davis and the fans and press are now in full-blown war over
7 if you zoom out a bit, you can see that even in stories that whose narrative is going to triumph. Al Davis has a story
8 don’t have anything obviously to do with revenge, narra- in his head about how failed quarterbacks can make good
9 tives police antisocial motives and reward prosocial ones. and worthy young men deserve second chances. The press
10 That’s why we like happy endings. And in romances, he and fans have another story in their heads about arrogant
11 said, people who don’t think the whole thing is going to owners who don’t listen to advice. And now we can make
12 turn out well (that is, that the prosocial motivations will some popcorn and pull up our chairs and see whose ver-
13 win out) are banished to the sidelines. He calls storytellers sion is going to win. If JaMarcus pulls himself together, then
14 ‘altruistic punishers,’ meaning that they get worked up on Al Davis’ version wins and the story turns into a romance
15 our behalf to punish the baddies and reward the goodies. I comedy about a visionary elder who keeps his faith in the
16 think he’s identifying large patterns, not saying every story misguided but goodhearted youngster. If JaMarcus screws up
17 has to have these features, though obviously a lot of them and has to be fired by the Raiders, then Davis is a senex
18 do. I also think he’s on to something pretty deep about iratus who is too cosseted to realize that his star quarter-
19 narrative.” back is a lazy defector. Then the story becomes something
20 “Take a breath,” you say. else—not a tragedy exactly, but an occasion for the rest of
21 “OK, there’s more. Flesch’s ideas converge with those us to sit around pointing fingers and saying ‘I told you so.’ ”
22 of a research team who studied how personality traits are “But what does that have to do with cognitive heu-
23 distributed across character types in nineteenth-century fic- ristics?” I ask.
24 tion. So protagonists are altruistic, non-selfish, reproductively After taking a deep breath of your own, you proceed.
25 viable, constructive, kin-oriented, optimistic, and conscien- “System 1 is all about what moral philosophers call deon-
26 tious. Antagonists, on the other hand, are domineering, tological judgments—fast and frugal judgments of good and
27 aggressive, bullying, and obsessed with money.10 I read their bad. System 2 (reason) is capable of Jeremy Bentham-like
28 work and I almost had a heart attack.” subtleties and utilitarian calculations. These sports stories
29 “Why?” are perfectly designed to get behind reason and appeal to
30 “Because I recognized so many of these antagonist the gut,” you say. “The barrier between the two systems is
31 traits in myself. But then I wrote to Joe Carroll, who is on obviously quite porous—we can reason our way out of a
32 the team, and he reassured me by saying that we all have to deontological stance into a utilitarian one. In fact we mod-
33 have antagonist traits or we’d be sitting ducks for sociopaths. erns are called on to do that every day. But the cognitive
34 Fiction has a stake in making it seem as though there are load required to apply the brakes on our fast and frugal
35 two separate groups of people with different traits. Anyway, heuristics is intense. So the stories I love most offer some
36 putting the two views together, we could say that narrative kind of relief from the rational self-restraint I’m forced to
37 evolved partly to police the antagonists among us and to exercise all the time—on the road, in the office, at home.
38 punish displays of bullying.” And frankly, no offense to you English professors, but I don’t
39 “Is that your final answer?” you ask. really want to know how it all looks under the hood—
40 “Well, for now I guess that’s what I think.” as long as the engine keeps purring along.” You sit back,
41 “I think you’d have a stronger case to make if you’d looking a bit triumphant.
42 been paying attention earlier when I was talking about “Gee,” I say. “Thanks for all your help. We’re really
43 System 1 and System 2,” you say. “The other day I was out of space now. But let me ask you a final question.”

204 fiction

SP_TER2_27_199-205.indd 204 2/1/11 12:03 PM

 “Sure.” posts?). But while Landy inspired some of this dialogue, 1
“What’s the one thing that the international soc- including some of the objections to Flesch, he is neither 2
cer federation could do to make soccer more appealing to of the people in it. 3
American audiences?” I ask. “I mean apart from putting in 4
breaks every five minutes for advertisements.” BIBLIOGRAPHY 5
“Oh that’s easy,” you say. “I’ve thought lots about it. 6
We need lots more scoring! The gut loves it when people Barrett, Deirdre. Supernormal Stimuli: How Primal Urges Overran Their 7
score goals! All they have to do is put in a shot clock to Evolutionary Purpose. 1st ed. New York: W.W. Norton, 2010. 8
limit each team’s possession. And we should let the players Bloom, Paul. “The Pleasures of the Imagination.” Chronicle of 9
use their hands, too. That would really help.” Higher Education, May 30, 2010. http://chronicle.com/article/ 10
The-Pleasures-of-Imagination/65678. Accessed May 30, 2010.
11
Bordwell, David. Poetics of Cinema. New York: Routledge, 2008.
BIBLIOGRAPHIC NOTE 12
Carroll, Joseph, Jonathan Gottschall, Daniel Kruger, and John
Johnson. “Hierarchy in the Library: Egalitarian Dynamics in 13
Victorian Novels.” Evolutionary Psychology 6 (2008): 715–38. 14
The views expressed by my interlocutor have been generally
Cosmides, Leda, and John Tooby. “Neurocognitive Adaptations 15
acquired by reading the work of Marc Hauser and Joshua
Designed for Social Exchange.” In The Handbook of Evolu- 16
Greene of Harvard University. See, for instance, this state-
tionary Psychology, edited by David Buss, 584–687. New York: 17
ment on Greene’s home page: Wiley, 2005. 18
Dutton, Denis. The Art Instinct: Beauty, Pleasure, and Human Evolu- 19
More specifically, I have proposed a “dual- tion. New York: Bloomsbury Press, 2009. 20
process” theory of moral judgment according Flesch, William. Comeuppance: Costly Signaling, Altruistic Punishment, 21
to which characteristically deontological moral and Other Biological Components of Fiction. Cambridge, MA:
22
judgments (judgments associated with con- Harvard University Press, 2007.
Kahneman, Daniel. “Maps of Bounded Rationality.” Nobel laure-
23
cerns for “rights” and “duties”) are driven by 24
ate address, December 8, 2002: http://nobelprize.org/nobel_
automatic emotional responses, while charac- 25
prizes/economics/laureates/2002/kahneman-lecture.html.
teristically utilitarian or consequentialist moral Shields, David. Reality Hunger: A Manifesto. New York: Alfred A. 26
judgments (judgments aimed at promoting the Knopf, 2010. 27
“greater good”) are driven by more controlled Wollheim, Richard. The Mind and Its Depths. Cambridge, MA: 28
cognitive processes. If I’m right, the tension Harvard University Press, 1993. 29
between deontological and consequentialist Wood, James. How Fiction Works. New York: Farrar, Straus and 30
moral philosophies reflects an underlying ten- Giroux, 2008. 31
sion between dissociable systems in the brain. 32
Many of my experiments employ moral dilem- NOTES 33
mas, adapted from the philosophical literature, 34
that are designed to exploit this tension and 1. Wollheim, Mind, 134.
35
reveal its psychological and neural underpin- 2. Bloom, “Pleasures.”
3. Barrett, Supernormal Stimuli, 12.
36
nings. (http://www.wjh.harvard.edu/~jgreene/) 37
4. Bordwell, Poetics, 59.
5. Bordwell, Poetics, 63. 38
Obviously none of my interlocutor’s mistakes or failings 6. Wood, Fiction, 8–9. 39
should be attributed to Greene or Hauser. 7. Cosmides and Tooby, “Neurocognitive Adaptations,” 587. 40
I am grateful to Joshua Landy for most of the football 8. Shields, Reality Hunger, 43–44. 41
(soccer) references throughout, including (I believe) some 9. Kahneman, “Maps.” 42
version of mordantly ironic suggestion (widening the goal 10. Carroll et al., “Hierarchy.” 43

blakey vermeule 205

SP_TER2_27_199-205.indd 205 2/1/11 12:03 PM

 1 Soul-Shaking Science
2
3
4
5
Book Under Review
6
7 Why Do We Care about Literary Characters?
8 by Blakey Vermeule. Johns Hopkins University Press, 2010.
9
10
11 ANNA NEILL In her contribution to a recent conversation about evolutionary science and
12 literary study hosted in Style, Blakey Vermeule confesses to a lasting belief in
13 the “soul-shaking power of literature.”1 She means that despite the value of
14 developing a science-based language with which to talk about them, literary
15 texts will always be more like vehicles of spiritual experience than objects of
16 knowledge. In Why Do We Care about Literary Characters, though, she seems more
17 confident about a consilience between aesthetic experience and the scientific
18 study of human nature. Pondering a strikingly similar phrase from Samuel Rich-
19 ardson’s Clarissa, she observes that the “soul-harrowing” influence of Clarissa’s
20 beauty reveals her enormous suffering and sacrifice. This influence cannot be
21 represented in the ordinary human exchanges that, like Job’s comforters, try
22 to make sense of such suffering. In Vermeule’s view, Clarissa’s simultaneous
23 disgrace and divinity give her tremendous stature in the history of the novel
24 precisely because they render her character opaque to mind reading and the
25 ordinary social bonds that depend upon such reading.
26 Literature plays an adaptive role in human social evolution because it
27 exercises the mind-reading talents that enable us to perform such psychologi-
28 cally and socially crucial tasks as securing attention, accumulating information
29 about ourselves and others, and detecting cheaters. Yet the cognitive complexity
30 of mind reading requires that we continually “ratchet up pressure” (98) on it
31 to secure our place in a social group.
32 Innovations in narrative form help to create this pressure. The pressure
33 increases when authors identify their invented minds with lower animals or
34 inanimate objects or, like Clarissa, with angels, thus rendering those minds
35 opaque. Or so goes the argument Vermeule unfolds.
36 I begin with the most conceptually difficult part of Vermeule’s argument,
37 but it is at the heart of her book. An early chapter describes how literature
38 often upsets “conceptual primitives” (21)—animism, personification, and the
39 distinction between body and soul—to surprise us into practical and moral
40 reasoning about other people and the situations in which they find themselves.
41 When literary texts turn objects into people, or conversely, turn people into
42 objects, we are startled into conscious awareness of how we interpret others
43

206 fiction

SP_TER2_28_206-208.indd 206 2/1/11 12:03 PM

 and our environment, how we create objects of disgust or literary language, as deconstructionists do. She is concerned 1
violence. Simultaneously, we necessarily recognize that we rather with the way literature mimics a cognitive deficiency 2
select other humans as the most important objects of our she calls “situational mind blindness”: the inability to dis- 3
attention. Our capacity to suspend simulation or empathy— tinguish between people and objects through the activity 4
to “reason offline,” as Vermeule puts it—trains us to reason of mind reading. For those who suffer from autism, this 5
about social objects even when the objects of our thought condition is often painful or tragic. In literature, though, it 6
are physically removed or dead. All this suggests the enor- offers a rich source of information about our social selves, 7
mous complexity with which our minds encounter and illuminating the process of dehumanization that facilitates so 8
interpret other minds. many forms of unfeeling brutality: indifference, exploitation, 9
Vermeule’s central argument, extending over several enslavement, genocide. This “sophisticated mode of irony” 10
chapters, is that literature not only reflects the sophistication (202) enables us to recognize social breakdowns in ways 11
of mind reading but actually augments it. An account of that we can never directly perceive when we are ourselves 12
“Machiavellian” fiction shows how a character’s exceptional enmeshed in them. In a way that makes this counterintuitive 13
powers of perception model higher-order social reasoning claim vividly compelling, Vermeule beautifully analyzes the 14
yet at the same time present the reader with disturbing representation of the averted gaze in William Hogarth’s print 15
problems in assessing hypocrisy and defects in conscience cycles and brings it into close contact with Jonathan Swift’s 16
and trustworthiness. Responding to those problems forces “excremental vision.” The final chapter, on J. M. Coetzee’s 17
a reader to exercise vital skills in social navigation. Another novels, shows how mind reading, the cognitive aptitude that 18
chapter identifies how techniques such as free indirect dis- animates the social world, is arrested by the dehumanizing 19
course stimulate us to recognize multiple levels of intention- effects of fanaticism and suffering. 20
ality, while other narrative forms deliberately provoke what Despite her eagerness to ground reading in cognitive 21
Vermeule calls “mind blindness,” forcing us to observe the neuroscience, which naturally associates itself with human 22
social order through the mind of a character who has opted nature, and thus with human universals,Vermeule gives close 23
out of it. In this case, an author’s strategies for provoking attention to historical contingency. Periodization helps her 24
high-level mind reading is another name for narrative irony. here. The eighteenth-century novel encouraged readers to 25
So too is the reverse strategy, which Vermeule later identifies refine their mind-reading talents by suppressing overt mind- 26
in the “God novel,” a form in which Providence guarantees reading activity. In this way, it managed to “slake two very 27
a point of view with full access to social knowledge even important psychological cravings” that “form part of our 28
while the reader’s own access is limited. Here we readers mammalian inheritance” (99): a craving for social informa- 29
are the ones who are (temporarily) socially blinded, and tion, and a craving for reciprocated attention. Modernist 30
thus forced to work all the harder at detecting cheaters narratives too cast off “their most overt symbols of reflec- 31
and hypocrites even as we become aware of our imperfect tion,” thus forcing us to gather social information more 32
social information. A chapter on gossip and literary narra- indirectly, for example through the lower and willfully 33
tive shows how narrative authority in free indirect discourse opaque consciousness of a character like Henry James’ 34
shifts from the characters who apparently demonstrate great Maisie. Postmodern texts, at least in the hands of a writer 35
insight, to the rather more blind “babble” (189) of resentful like Coetzee, document the failure of mind reading, not as 36
gossip. In each case, “blindness” turns out to be as important the means to a higher-order social insight, but as evidence 37
in literary mind reading as “insight.” of social breakdown. The literary, high-minded audience for 38
When she invokes “blindness” and “insight,” Vermeule Coetzee’s novels—“immersed in the social world” (243)—is 39
is of course alluding to the title of a work by the Yale outfoxed by the fanatic. 40
deconstructionist, Paul de Man: Blindness and Insight. Yet she Vermeule makes a bold and basic move toward inte- 41
does not stress the tension between rhetoric and meaning in grating universalism and historicism in the study of the 42
43

anna neill 207

SP_TER2_28_206-208.indd 207 2/1/11 12:03 PM

 1 novel. She argues that “our mind-reading capacity is a highly Vermeule’s argument implies that we need to remain
2 evolved and complex cognitive system for understanding the historically sensitive even as we become scientifically
3 beliefs, intentions and desires of other people” (98). She also informed. Yet she does not explicitly make this strong
4 argues, nonetheless, that specifically “literary” devices refine claim. Perhaps that’s because it is now science that recog-
5 and heighten this capacity, and those devices were invented nizes literature’s power to shake the soul. Historicism bel-
6 at specific moments in our extremely recent history. For ligerently flattens our emotional responses to characters and
7 instance, using novels to shift moral authority from the eye their plights by emphasizing how those plights participate
8 of God to public scrutiny can be traced to the rise of two- in broader social events and modes of representation. Cog-
9 party politics and the decline of court patronage (108); and nitive science, in contrast, allows us to register our visceral
10 the difference between Pope’s and Richardson’s depictions of reactions to texts and characters without sacrificing ana-
11 female experience is the difference “between modernity and lytical rigor. Our feelings for Clarissa say something very
12 premodernity” (127).Vermeule suggests that evolutionary psy- important about how we function as social animals. Before
13 chologists should read historicist literary critics like Catherine literary theory, the story of criticism goes, there was just
14 Gallagher, who argues that the novel trains readers to function literary appreciation. This book lets us love literature again,
15 in a social world governed by a capitalist marketplace (165). yet shows us how to read it closely, thoroughly, and with
16 Because Vermeule is arguing simultaneously from a purpose.
17 universalist and historicist stance, it would be difficult to say
18 whether her account of a psychological novel like Clarissa BIBLIOGRAPHY
19 is grounded primarily in evolutionary science or in history.
20 She wants to challenge any historical hypothesis that the
Vermeule, Blakey. “Response to Joseph Carroll.” Style 42 (2008):
21 novel is merely one of many sources of social information
302–06.
22 that belong to print culture. Yet her claim for the special
23 status of literature as a medium of social information—
24 enormously complex and often self-contradictory—relies as NOTE
25 much on a historical understanding of the rise of the novel
26 as on cognitive studies of how we process social information. 1. Vermeule, “Response,” 302.
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43

208 fiction

SP_TER2_28_206-208.indd 208 2/1/11 12:03 PM

 The Semantic Apocalypse 1
2
3
4
Bakker’s Neuropath and the Evolutionary Imagination 5
6
7
8
9
MATHIAS CLASEN “You’re a machine . . . dreaming you have a soul.”1 10
11
12
Darwin’s theory of evolution sparks the imagination. It entails a dynamic uni- 13
verse, a nature ever in flux, an amazingly different deep past and an all-but- 14
unknowable far future. The Darwinian worldview thus holds a tremendous 15
dramatic potential. H. G. Wells, who was trained in biology by T. H. Huxley, 16
was one of the first novelists to exploit this potential. In his early “scientific 17
romances,” Wells cultivated the evolutionary imagination: the ability to see the 18
world biologically, to imagine the invisible hand of selection behind all nature. 19
Other novelists have since followed suit. 20
The evolutionary imagination allows us to perceive the distal causes of 21
proximal mechanisms, to glimpse the colossal selective machinery churning 22
away in the mists of prehistory. It allows us to recognize that babies are not 23
inherently cute, but that selection favored parents with a fondness for neotenous 24
features; that rotten meat is not inherently disgusting—for flies, it is a delicate 25
and savory repast. Humans wretch at the odor of decaying flesh only because 26
selection in humans favored an aversion to toxic substances—substances toxic 27
to them, not to flies. The evolutionary imagination even allows us to see the 28
irony in bringing flowers to a romantic rendezvous, in offering “the severed 29
genitalia of another species . . . as a precopulatory bribe.”2 30
31
FROM EVOLUTIONARY MCGUFFINS TO DRAMATIZED 32
PSYCH TEXTBOOKS 33
34
Imagine a continuum in the ways creative writers assimilate the evolutionary 35
imagination. At one end, evolutionary theory is used merely as a McGuffin, 36
Hitchcock’s term for a narrative device that has no intrinsic importance and 37
serves merely to further the plot. We can call this strategy the McDarwin 38
strategy. At the other end of the continuum, evolution serves a vital role in 39
the narrative; the narrative dramatizes evolutionary biology or psychology. Like 40
The Island of Dr. Moreau and The Time Machine, Scott Bakker’s novel Neuropath 41
offers an exemplary instance of real Darwinism in fiction. 42
43

mathias clasen 209

SP_TER2_29_209-214.indd 209 2/1/11 12:04 PM

 1 To appreciate the magnitude of Bakker’s achievement
2 in Neuropath, it will help to glance over a couple of McDar-
3 win’s. Consider, for instance, the horror film The Descent.3
4 It’s about a group of women who embark on an ill-fated
5 recreational climbing trip in an underground cave system.
6 As it turns out, the caves are inhabited by highly aggressive,
7 man-eating mutants. As one character says, “They’ve evolved
8 perfectly to live down here in the dark.” The invocation of
9 evolution serves merely as “cognitive validation”; that is, to
10 legitimize the more fantastic elements of the story.4 The
11 character’s observation could be switched for “They came
12 here in a spaceship last weekend,” and the story would
13 remain basically the same.
14 Another, even sillier, example of the McDarwin is
15 the Mormon Stephenie Meyer’s stupendously successful
16 Twilight series, in which über-attractive vampire Edward
17 debates origins with his human girlfriend. Quoth the vam-
18 pire theologian,
19
20 Well, where did you come from? Evolution?
21 Creation? Couldn’t we have evolved in the same
22 way as other species, predator and prey? Or, if
23 you don’t believe that all this world could have
24 just happened on its own, which is hard for me
25 to accept myself, is it so hard to believe that
26 the same force that created the delicate angel-
27 fish with the shark, the baby seal and the killer
28 whale, could create both our kinds together?5
29
30 Here, evolution has no consequences for or impact on the
31 narrative. It’s merely a hapless straw man that is positioned
32 indelicately in Meyer’s way. Not, by the way, that evolution-
33 ary theory is incompatible with the vampire figure: Peter
34 Watts’ Blindsight postulates a now-extinct subspecies, Homo
35 sapiens vampiris, which diverged from the ancestral line some
36 700,000 years ago. Watts provides ample speculation on its
37 evolution, including a “cross-wiring of normally distinct
38 receptor arrays in the visual cortex” to account for the
39 “Crucifix glitch,” the seizures suffered by vampires when
40 “the arrays processing vertical and horizontal stimuli [fire]
41 simultaneously across a sufficiently large arc of the visual
42
43
field”; hence, vampires’ aversion to Euclidian architecture in
general and crucifixes in particular (369).
Somewhere around the middle of the spectrum we
find Stephen King’s apocalyptic horror novel Cell, about a
mysterious signal or “pulse,” a kind of neural virus transmit-
ted via the cell phone network. The signal nukes its victims’
cognitive faculties, reducing them to their putative Darwin-
ian cores, that is, slobbering zombies. As one character puts
it: “What Darwin was too polite to say, my friends, is that
we came to rule the earth not because we were the smartest,
or even the meanest, but because we have always been the
craziest, most murderous motherfuckers in the jungle. And
that is what the Pulse exposed.”6 Here, King uses evolu-
tionary theory—Konrad Lorenz, as it happens—to validate
his imaginative account of the zombie apocalypse. Yet this
is no mere McDarwin: King wants to say something about
human nature and the alleged dark and murderous essence
that shimmers uneasily behind the onionskins of socializa-
tion. King’s grasp of evolutionary thinking leaves something
to be desired, however, in that his zombies undergo a kind
of Lamarckian evolution (333). They evolve into levitating
telepaths, all within a few months; there is nothing to sug-
gest that the Pulse has any genomic ramifications, so if and
when the telepathic zombies have offspring, those would
be healthy, normal children.
NEUROPATH AND THE SEMANTIC APOCALYPSE
Scott Bakker, a Canadian author of epic fantasy and former
doctoral candidate in philosophy at the University of West-
ern Ontario, extrapolates from current cognitive science and
neurobiology in his novel Neuropath, which came out in
2008 in Canada and the United Kingdom. (Apparently, U.S.
publishers were reluctant to disseminate the disturbing story,
but it finally came out in an American edition in 2009
from Tor, a press specializing in speculative fiction such as
science fiction and horror.)
The story of Neuropath is set a few decades in the
future and takes place over the span of two weeks. Thomas
Bible, a professor of cognitive psychology, is approached by
the FBI as they suspect his old college friend Neil of kid-

210 fiction

SP_TER2_29_209-214.indd 210 2/1/11 12:04 PM

 napping and mutilating a porn star. Neil is now a brilliant deceptiveness or illusory nature of consciousness. In Thomas 1
neurosurgeon working for a shadowy neuromanipulation and Neil’s parlance, people who have not assimilated the 2
agency under the NSA, but has recently gone AWOL. The latter worldview simply live in Disney World, “the world as 3
FBI has received a disc with a recording of the afore- understood by the masses, one papered over with conceit 4
mentioned actress: her skull has been sawed open—she’s after comforting conceit” (28), and it seems that Thomas 5
alive and conscious—and the perpetrator is able to instill has been sliding back into Disney World with its reassur- 6
in her intense sexual pleasure via electrodes attached to ances of meaning and purpose ever since he became a 7
her exposed cortex. Later, he rewires her brain so that she father. Neil, on the other hand, has left that fantasy world 8
experiences pain as pleasure. He then hands her a piece for good, and he is out to demonstrate the Argument. He 9
of broken glass. This, it turns out, is the second in a series intends to show that pleasure is simply a matter of brain 10
of abductions and neuromutilations: a prominent billionaire wiring, that the notion of personhood is highly problematic 11
has his brain manipulated so that he can no longer rec- (the prosopagnosic billionaire lives in a world of “faceless 12
ognize faces; a congressman is neurologically manipulated monstrosities,” 75), that free will is an illusion produced 13
into molesting a little girl, and a televangelist has a power- by the brain after the fact, that religious experience and 14
ful religious experience by means of neural manipulation. spirituality boil down to neural activity. “Neil was stripping 15
As it turns out, the crimes are indeed perpetrated by away the illusions, trying to reveal the meat puppet within” 16
Neil Cassidy, who is out to prove “the Argument”: that (125). In the end, Thomas Bible is strapped to a souped-up 17
humans are “simply meat puppets deluded into believing we Transcranial Magnetic Stimulator, forced to experience an 18
live in a moral and meaningful world” (25). In their college abyss of despair, the sparkling heights of joy, body-wracking 19
days, Thomas and Neil spent a lot of time debating and push- orgasms, and harrowing cognitive dissociations. All as proof 20
ing the Argument, and Thomas has published an academic that experience itself is the result of biochemistry which can 21
monograph on the matter, Through the Brain Darkly. The be manipulated. 22
Argument engages with the more unsettling consequences Scott Bakker extrapolates from actual trends in neu- 23
of neuroscience: the apparent death of free will, intentional- roscience and cognitive science—from the work of such 24
ity, and ultimately meaning. In other words, the “semantic thinkers as Daniel Dennett and Thomas Metzinger. In the 25
apocalypse” (57). As Thomas puts it, we humans are near future of Neuropath, many of the more radical and 26
speculative corollaries of neuroscience have become fact, 27
just . . . biomechanisms, processing inputs, but fact which is unknown or rejected by the masses. The 28
churning out behavioral outputs, which in disenchantment of the human, the naturalization of man, has 29
turn become further inputs. All the reason, the reached critical mass, and the science is there to prove it, 30
purpose, the meaning, is simply the result of even as it runs counter to experience, philosophy, religious 31
the fact that the neural machinery responsible sensibilities: “What are you going to believe?” asks Thomas 32
for consciousness has access to a mere sliver of Bible, “A four-thousand-year-old document bent on tribal 33
what our brains process—a sliver that it con- self-glorification? Your own flattering intuitions on the fun- 34
fuses for everything. Outside that sliver, there’s damental nature of things? Some hothouse philosophical 35
no reason, no point, no meaning. Just . . . shit interpretation that takes years of specialized training just to 36
happening. (148) understand? Or an institution that makes things like com- 37
puters, thermonuclear explosions, and cures for small-pox 38
Neuropath powerfully juxtaposes intuitive experience— possible?” (56). 39
of being a unified self, an intentional agent, a meaning Bakker continues the project of naturalizing the 40
maker—with neurophilosophical claims of the fundamental human that Darwin legitimized. We are just as much a part 41
42
43

mathias clasen 211

SP_TER2_29_209-214.indd 211 2/1/11 12:04 PM

 1 of nature as the earth worm and the dung beetle—not the
2 glorious image of God, not even, in any meaningful sense,
3 at the apogee of the evolutionary ladder. This latter point
4 was eloquently dramatized by H. G. Wells in his science
5 fiction novel The War of the Worlds from 1898, where Mar-
6 tians, who have evolved to “become practically brains,”7 flee
7 their dying planet to conquer the vastly inferior Earthlings.
8 Aptly, the Martians are defeated not by human intelligence
9 or technology, but by common bacteria which are, by this
10 adaptive standard, more successful than the most advanced
11 intelligence. It is merely human vanity that places us on a
12 universal pedestal, perhaps even outside of nature. Bakker
13 makes a similar, if less delicate, point: “The only reason
14 humans think they’re so smart is that our nearest competi-
15 tors are still sniffing each other’s asses to say hello.”8
16 Neuroscience is, along trajectories that are still impos-
17 sible to predict, reconfiguring what it means to be human,
18 and challenging many of our most cherished ideas of our-
19 selves—even as, as Bakker has pointed out in a lecture, the
20 Argument is something that people “tend to ‘get’ even in
21 the absence of specialized training.”9 What hormone-flooded
22 adolescent has not grappled with the unsettling idea that he
23 is merely a biomechanism, a rage of electrochemical activity
24 in a stumbling concatenation of flesh and boiling blood?
25
26 THE WORLD IS A PSYCHOPATH
27
28 Neuropath concerns itself centrally with the many self-
29 delusions and rationalizations that are so natural to our
30 kind. People cook up ideologies and religions, craft elabo-
31 rate delusions and fantasy worlds with the ease of beavers
32 building dams. (For a dispiriting survey of the many cogni-
33 tive shortcomings and biases that humans are prone to, see
34 Cordelia Fine’s A Mind of Its Own.)10 As Peter Watts has
35 a character put it, “Brains are survival engines, not truth
36 detectors. If self-deception promotes fitness, the brain lies.”11
37 In the near future of Neuropath, most people live in
38 “a kind of media-constructed, virtual stone age, indulging
39 their ancient yens for sex, gossip, violence, simplicity and
40 certainty, flattery and competition—those things humans
41 in small, highly interdependent communities required in
42 the great reproductive scrum called evolution.” As Thomas
43
212 fiction
SP_TER2_29_209-214.indd 212
Bible speculates, “that’s all popular culture [is], a modern,
market-driven prosthetic for the Paleolithic brain” (166). It
is a compelling idea. Special attention is given to the figure
of the psychopath:
Contemporary culture had digested the mean-
inglessness of natural events, the fact that they
were indifferent to all things human. . . . What
made psychopaths so indigestible . . . what
drove culture to slather them with layer after
layer of cinematic and textual pearl, was that
they were humans that were indifferent to all
things human. They were natural disasters per-
sonified . . . an expression of the nihilistic truth
of existence. (167)
And when Thomas’ four-year-old son has been abducted
and rewired—a “device” is attached to the central nucleus
of his amygdalae, forcing him to “cycle through terror after
terror after terror,” a “misery as profound as anything God
could dish out in hell” (193)—the fundamental meaningless-
ness of it all overcomes our protagonist:
The world was a great mindless thresher. Every
second, spirits broken, cancers missed, daughters
raped, wives beaten, children murdered. Every
fucking second, the rules of narrative annihi-
lated. Every second for a thousand years—for a
million! Even his hominid ancestors had wept,
hadn’t they? Raised hapless hands against the
dust-rimmed misery of their lives. Even the
australopithecines had screamed. . . .
Every second some father failed his son.
The world wasn’t a fable or an epic or
even a comic tragedy.
It was a psychopath. (227)
Bakker points here to the delusive human tendency to
impose a narrative understanding on the world. His basi-
cally Gothic project of exposing the darkness (or, in this
case, the nothingness) that lies behind the Day-Glo facades
of Disney World is deeply unsettling, but Bakker is “neither
2/1/11 12:04 PM
 an eliminatavist nor a nihilist; I genuinely believe that what science to validate the narrative (science is then in the 1
we experience should trump what we know. But like Thomas, service of fiction); it can use itself as a vehicle to discuss 2
I just can’t figure out how to argue this honestly, let alone science and its consequences (and then fiction is the ser- 3
convincingly” (afterword, 305). vant of science); or it can do both. Neuropath does both: it 4
tells an engaging story, one supposedly validated by science; 5
THE POWER OF NARRATIVE and offers intelligent ethical and philosophical speculations 6
on science. It may turn out that the harrowing experience 7
With Neuropath, Bakker showcases the kind of narrative the of reading Neuropath is merely neurochemical machinations 8
evolutionary imagination can produce. At every step, he uses glimpsed in the dream of a biomachine, but it is no less 9
his protagonist as a channel for observations on the evo- compelling for that. 10
lutionary machinations that underlie everyday experience 11
and phenomena. Bakker has his imaginative eye focused BIBLIOGRAPHY 12
on the bleaker corollaries of a naturalistic philosophy, to 13
be sure, but his story is fundamentally underwritten by the Bakker, Scott. Neuropath. London: Orion Books, 2008. 14
evolutionary imagination. ———. “The Semantic Apocalypse.” Speculative Heresy. http:// 15
It seems that narrative is especially well suited for deliv- speculativeheresy.wordpress.com/2008/11/26/the-semantic- 16
ering truth claims. It’s not all fuzzy-cuddly make-believe and apocalypse/ (accessed March 2, 2010). 17
Disch, Thomas M. The Dreams Our Stuff Is Made Of: How Science Fic-
a frivolous waste of time. As the science fiction critic Thomas 18
tion Conquered the World. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1999.
M. Disch observes, “it was Wells, much more than his mentor Fine, Cordelia. A Mind of Its Own: How Your Brain Distorts and
19
Huxley, who tipped the balance in favor of the acceptance of Deceives. New York: W. W. Norton, 2006. 20
the evolutionary hypothesis by creating myths sturdy enough Hammond, Claudia. Emotional Rollercoaster: A Journey Through the 21
to persist into our time. A theory can be controverted; a myth Science of Feelings. London: HarperCollins, 2007. 22
persuades at gut level.”12 The narrative form allows a writer to King, Stephen. Cell. London: Hodder and Stoughton, 2006. 23
deliver an emotionally tinted and ideologically shaded portrait Meyer, Stephenie. Twilight. London: Atom, 2007. 24
of the world, and to extrapolate beyond the bounds of what Pat’s Fantasy Hotlist. “New R. Scott Bakker Interview.” http:// 25
is currently the case, yes, but also to nourish empathy and fantasyhotlist.blogspot.com/2008/04/new-r-scott-bakker- 26
emotion in the reader. As an example of the way narrative interview.html (accessed March 19, 2010). 27
manipulates emotional reader response, Claudia Hammond Suvin, Darko. “On the Poetics of the Science Fiction Genre.” 28
College English 34 (1979): 372–82.
sprinkles her survey of the science of emotions, Emotional 29
Watts, Peter. Blindsight. New York: Tor, 2006.
Rollercoaster, with countless little narratives—fictional, real, Wells, H. G. The War of the Worlds. Mineola, NY: Dover Thrift, 1997.
30
and in-between.13 She uses these stories to make her read- 31
ers feel the emotion under discussion. Likewise, Bakker uses FILMOGRAPHY
32
narrative not just to convey information about the possible 33
consequences of neuromanipulation and noninvasive brain The Descent. Directed by Neil Marshall, 2005. 34
technology, but to make his readers feel the consequences. 35
A book by Thomas Metzinger can be disturbing, but Bak- NOTES 36
ker out-Metzingers Metzinger. In a blurb on the American 37
edition of the novel, Metzinger writes that “This book has 1. Bakker, Neuropath, 55; hereafter cited as Neuropath. 38
emotionally hurt and disturbed me in a way none has done 2. Watts, Blindsight, 90. 39
in many years. You should think twice before reading this.” 3. Descent. 40
Neuropath is a work of science fiction. Fiction can 4. Suvin, “Poetics.” 41
engage with science for a number of reasons: it can use 5. Meyer, Twilight, 269. 42
43

mathias clasen 213

SP_TER2_29_209-214.indd 213 2/1/11 12:04 PM

 1 6. King, Cell, 182. 10. Fine, Mind of Its Own.
2 7. Wells, War of the Worlds, 104. 11. Watts, Blindsight, 288.
3 8. Pat’s Fantasy Hotlist, “R. Scott Bakker Interview.” 12. Disch, Dreams, 62.
4 9. Bakker, “Semantic Apocalypse.” 13. Hammond, Emotional Rollercoaster.
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43

214 fiction

SP_TER2_29_209-214.indd 214 2/1/11 12:04 PM

 Of Ants and Men 1
2
3
4
A Conversation with E. O. Wilson 5
6
7
8
Book Under Review 9
Anthill 10
by E. O. Wilson. W. W. Norton, 2010. 11
12
13
JONATHAN GOTTSCHALL The actors in a story are usually human. . . . Other animals have been 14
introduced, but with limited success, for we know too little so far about 15
their psychology. There may be, probably will be, an alteration here in the 16
future . . . and we shall have animals who are neither symbolic, nor little 17
men disguised, nor as four-legged tables moving, nor as painted scraps of 18
paper that fly. It is one of the ways where science may enlarge the novel
19
by giving it fresh subject matter. But the help has not been given yet,
and until it comes we may say that the actors in a story are, or pretend
20
to be, human beings. 21
22
—E. M. Forster, Aspects of the Novel (1927)
23
24
25
In 2006, I attended the annual meeting of the Human Behavior and Evolution
26
Society (HBES) in Austin, Texas. One evening, I was riding the elevator at the
27
conference hotel, pleasantly crushed against the back wall by a swarm of young
28
and tipsy women who were part of a bridal party. The elevator door opened,
29
and an old man stepped inside. He was wearing unfashionable eyeglasses, and
30
his suit looked out of date too. His steel gray hair drooped boyishly over one
31
eye. He had an HBES name tag pinned to his right lapel.
32
I stared at him. I stared at his lapel to verify my suspicion. I stared at
33
him again and our eyes met briefly. The sight of me seemed to amuse him.
34
He smiled in a kindly way, before looking down. Maybe he noticed how my
35
jaw had gone a little slack when he entered the elevator or how my eyes got
36
wide. Or maybe he was just smiling at the image of a lone young man stand-
37
ing out amid the young women in their gowns like a weed among flowers.
38
Maybe he was thinking to himself, “Lucky lad.”
39
The elevator stopped and the old man got off. I had to tell someone. I
40
announced to the young women, “That man—he’s one of the greatest scien-
41
tists in the world. One of the greatest of the whole century. That was E. O.
42
43

jonathan gottschall 215

SP_TER2_30_215-217.indd 215 2/1/11 12:04 PM

 1 Wilson!” The young women turned to me briefly. Some
2 of them smiled politely. And then they went back to their
3 titter and gab.
4 I now feel bad for damning Wilson with faint praise.
5 As most people know, E. O. Wilson is a Crafoord Prize–
6 winning biologist, one of the world’s leading authorities on
7 ants, and a pivotal figure in the renaissance of evolution-
8 ary thought in the human sciences. But he is also a keen
9 philosopher (On Human Nature; Consilience), an eloquent
10 spokesman for conservation and biodiversity (The Future
11 of Life; The Creation), and a fine prose stylist who has won
12 two Pulitzer prizes.
13 In the late years of his life, E. O. Wilson has continued
14 to work with the same vigor and restless intelligence that
15 marked his work as a younger man. When he attended that
16 HBES conference in 2006, he didn’t come to play the grand
17 old man or to speak nostalgically about the triumphs of his
18 long career. He came to take a risk. He came to champion
19 what was—at the time—the single most verboten idea in
20 evolutionary psychology: that group selection is a power-
21 ful evolutionary force in humans and other animals. The
22 paper Wilson read was a preview of his 2008 book with
23 Bert Hölldobler, Superorganism, which demonstrates that the
24 ultrasociality of social insects is a product of group selection.
25 In one important respect, Superorganism follows the same
26 pattern as Wilson’s Sociobiology. The book is about animals,
27 but it ends with reflections on humans. In the final chapter,
28 Hölldobler and Wilson argue for deep parallels between ant
29 social behavior and human social behavior, and argue that
30 group selection has played a powerful role in shaping both.
31 And now, at the age of eighty-one, E. O. Wilson
32 has published his first novel, Anthill. Anthill clearly allowed
33 Wilson to explore the great subjects of his life—evolution,
34 biodiversity, bug nature, human nature—in a way that he
35 couldn’t in scientific journals or monographs. The book
36 is part nostalgic retrospective on Alabama boyhood, part
37 conservationist primer, part ethnography of the southland,
38 and part love story between an idealistic young man and
39 a mucky tract of Alabama swamp. The novel spent five
40 weeks on the New York Times extended bestseller list, and has
41 recently been honored with the Chicago Tribune’s Heartland
42 Prize for fiction.
43
Wilson was kind enough to answer some of my ques-
tions for The Evolutionary Review.
JG: In what ways was writing a novel harder than writ-
ing your nonfiction books and articles?
EOW: Holding all those people in my head, talking, inter-
acting, changing with time. In nonfiction you can
stop, put your notes and databases away for a while,
come back and pick up easily. You can’t ever leave
your fiction people. I ended up knowing the make-
believe Mobile Semmes [the Alabama family at the
center of Anthill] better than the real Mobile Wilsons.
JG: In what ways was it easier?
EOW: I found that the plot virtually wrote itself. Also, the
dialogue was easy, because I talk a lot to myself,
sometimes in Southern dialect.
JG: Are you now an ex-novelist, or are you just getting
started?
EOW: Probably ex. I’m already deep into my next nonfic-
tion work, a new synthesis on the genetic origin of
advanced social behavior.
JG: In Anthill, you write that ants are a metaphor for
us, and we for them. Mostly, though, when biolo-
gists study animal behavior the insights seem to go
in one direction: from the animal we gain insight
into the human. What have you learned about ants
from your observations of people?
EOW: Not a lot. There are parallels in life cycles, resource
depletion, and war, but ants are so different in the
fundamentals of caste, communication, and cognition
that they might as well be from another planet.
JG: You have had a long and illustrious career in science
and conservation. It took some guts to try your hand
at fiction. What did you hope to accomplish that you
couldn’t accomplish through your nonfiction writ-
ing? Put a little differently, were you driven mainly
by a desire to create art or mainly by a desire to
get across an important message about conservation?
EOW: Both. On art, I realized that no novelist had writ-
ten with the same intricacy of the natural world,
or described humans and nature in a way that real-
istically compared them—with anthropomorphism

216 fiction

SP_TER2_30_215-217.indd 216 2/1/11 12:04 PM

 truly scrubbed out. Also, the time had come to sug- the crucial question about your book that I failed 1
gest to my fellow Southerners that their crisis is no to ask? What’s the answer? 2
longer race and civil rights but in the environment EOW: You’ve done pretty well. One of my ambitions is 3
(and that before the oil spill). to have literary Darwinists include Anthill in their 4
JG: The most striking part of Anthill, for me and many analyses. 5
other readers, is its seventy-five–page integrated 6
novella called The Anthill Chronicles. I don’t think 7
BIBLIOGRAPHY
I’ve ever read anything like it. Storytellers find it 8
almost impossible not to personify their nonhuman 9
subjects; but I think you’ve avoided it. You give a Forster, E. M. Aspects of the Novel. New York: Harcourt, 1927. 10
highly plausible portrait of the ant “mind.” The Ant- Hölldobler, Bert, and E. O. Wilson. Superorganism. Cambridge, MA: 11
hill Chronicles describes the waxing and waning of Harvard University Press, 2008. 12
ant empires, and it is riveting stuff. What lessons can Wilson, E. O. Consilience: The Unity of Knowledge. New York: Alfred 13
A. Knopf, 1998.
humans glean from the rise and fall of ant empires? 14
———. Sociobiology: The New Synthesis. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
EOW: Perhaps that, as you well know, we both have tragic University Press, 1975.
15
genetic flaws. In my next (nonfiction) book, I will ———. On Human Nature. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University 16
argue that in our deep nature is a flaw that raised Press, 1979. 17
our species up and now threatens to bring us down. ———. The Future of Life. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2002. 18
JG: In conversations I’ve had with journalists, there is ———. The Creation: An Appeal to Save Life on Earth. New York: 19
often a key question that they fail to ask. What is W. W. Norton, 2006. 20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43

jonathan gottschall 217

SP_TER2_30_215-217.indd 217 2/1/11 12:04 PM

 1 Land Ho!
2
3
4
5 Tilling the Good Earth in Latina/o Criticism
6
7
8
9 Book Under Review
10 Reading and Writing the Latin American Landscape.
11 by Beatriz Rivera-Barnes and Jerry Hoeg. Palgrave Macmillan, 2009.
12
13
14 JEFF TURPIN Latina/o culture has always had an ambiguous relationship with the land. On
15 the one hand, Latinos in larger American cities are mostly émigrés from the
16 Caribbean, Central and South America, and Mexico, and their history is an
17 ambivalent sort of diaspora. In some cases they are emigrants by choice, in
18 others by necessity. The Latinas of the American Southwest are deterritorialized
19 residents living on their birth lands but not formally possessing them. (They
20 are, in Bhabha’s term, “unhomed.”1) The same is true of resident populations
21 in the Americas and the Caribbean. Latina/o literary criticism was founded
22 on the “idea of place,” and it remains hyper-aware of place. Homelands, places
23 of origin, deterritorialization, borders between territories, all constitute basic
24 elements of the genre and serve as metaphors for less “grounded” theoretical
25 excursions. For example, seminal Chicana theorist Gloria Anzaldúa used the
26 border between Mexico and the United States as the basis for extensive theoriz-
27 ing on the dividing lines between political, personal, and ideological identities.2
28 She ended her career discussing and implementing ways to bridge the borders
29 between these real or symbolic places.3 In their foundational collection Aztlán:
30 Essays on the Chicano Homeland, Francisco Lomelí and Rudolfo Anaya argue
31 that for the mestizo populations of the American Southwest an imagined natal
32 territory offers an essential nexus of identity.4 The still active Aztlán movement
33 remains fixed on recapturing that putative homeland—although its exact loca-
34 tion remains hypothetical.
35 Most Latin American people are genetic composites of indigenous popu-
36 lations and European colonizers. This demographic situation produces an ines-
37 capable cultural tension. Every individual Latina/o, and every Latina/o culture, is
38 a postcolonial product. If imperialism and colonialism had not happened, these
39 people and these cultures would not exist. Several of the authors and characters
40 discussed in Beatriz Rivera-Barnes and Jerry Hoeg’s Reading and Writing the
41 Latin American Landscape embody this tension. Fernándes de Lizardi or Rómulo
42 Gallegos’ Marisela, for instance, are “both the colonizer and the colonized” (70).
43

218 fiction

SP_TER2_31_218-220.indd 218 2/1/11 12:04 PM

 Modern Latinas/os are the children of fathers who left their dard mixture of poststructuralist theories—Marxist, feminist, 1
homeland and of mothers whose homeland was invaded postcolonial. In this first decade of the third millennium, 2
by their fathers. Such cultures must always self-consciously poststructuralism appears to have lost a good deal of its 3
critique their “fathers.” They are haunted by the sense that momentum. A culture with a scant five hundred years of 4
they embody what they must condemn. Rape, violence, and formal history should not be stranded by the ebb tide of 5
crime, which provoke their outrage, are also the founding Theory. Clearly, environmentalism and conservation are the 6
conditions of their existence. new superpowers in the globalism dialogue, and literary 7
The terms diaspora and homeland are mutually exclu- Darwinism is the prime aspirant to be the Grand Unifying 8
sive but also mutually dependent.5 Many contemporary sub- Theory of literature. In this book, Latin America is buoyed 9
cultures define themselves from the point at which they first up on these next waves in literary criticism. By aggressively 10
lost their homeland. Yet many New and Third World cul- pairing Latin American culture with environmentalism and 11
tures are moving aggressively in the other direction, strongly the evolutionary human sciences, Landscape can and should 12
affirming or reaffirming their bonds to specific natal lands. carry Latina/o criticism into the next millennium. 13
Examples include postcolonial Latin Americans and Native New World and Third World postcolonial discourses 14
American groups, Australian Aborigines, African Bushmen, frequently regard science as an enemy, as a tool or weapon of 15
along with Old World Israeli Jews. In Reading and Writing the an invading culture. Yet environmentalism, conservationism, 16
Latin American Landscape, Rivera-Barnes and Hoeg capture and ecocriticism are grounded in scientific knowledge. They 17
some of the ambiguity and complexity of the human rela- bring science to bear on the history and consequences of 18
tionship with the land. For instance, by juxtaposing Chris- human behaviors. In fact most critical environmental degra- 19
topher Columbus’ Journal of the First Voyage and Horatio dation is currently taking place in the New and Third worlds. 20
Quiroga’s story “The Return of Anaconda,” Rivera-Barnes Standing on the firm foundation of science makes it possible 21
probes the question of whether a homeland remains essen- for Rivera-Barnes and Hoeg to maintain their balance in a 22
tial to human happiness or even its sanity. slippery critical/philosophical world: “Let us note here that 23
By adopting an ecocritical approach, Rivera-Barnes we have endeavored not to lose sight of empirical data, lest 24
and Hoeg depolarize the traditional binaries and dichoto- we be swept away by a romantic vision, the pursuit of which 25
mies of postcolonial criticism. In addition to discussing how actually serves precisely those ends we seek to thwart” (3). 26
colonialism affected “subject” peoples or Old World econo- There are consilient gems in this book. For instance, 27
mies, they consider what colonialism did to lands, plants, Rivera-Barnes’ application of hydrology, meteorology, 28
and animals. Most available evidence indicates that our spe- oceanography, mythology, and history to Cabeza de Vaca’s 29
cies and its antecedents have been migrating or “coloniz- disastrous expedition along the American Gulf Coast, and 30
ing” for at least two million years. The injection of other, Hoeg’s combination of history, bibliography, biology, biog- 31
nonhuman points of view into the traditional colonialist raphy, anthropology, and linguistics to assess Andrés Bello’s 32
polemic literally grounds the various discussions, moving “Ode to Tropical Agriculture,” epitomize the marriage of 33
toward an objective appraisal of this oldest of our species’ art and science. Postcolonial criticism is almost necessarily 34
defining traits. subjective, and traditionally issues from the relativized pen of 35
The authors’ standpoint is openly ecocritical: “The the colonized subject, but science in its most ideal applica- 36
ultimate goal of this project is to awaken a latent biophilia tions is objective, and these interdisciplinary critiques at least 37
and a conservation ethic through an ecocritical reading of point toward objectivity, leading the postcolonial argument 38
both artistic and testimonial texts. . . . The result is a sym- away from the relative and the subjective, contextualizing 39
biotic relationship between the arts and the sciences, as it against a background of facts and universals. In this way, 40
well as a different approach to Latin American culture” (7). Rivera-Barnes and Hoeg affirm the global effects of human 41
Latin American literary criticism is a late-comer to the stan- migrations and invasions over deep time. 42
43

jeff turpin 219

SP_TER2_31_218-220.indd 219 2/1/11 12:04 PM

 1 Though taking literary ecocriticism as their master consequences of migration for both colonist and indigene.
2 discourse, the authors invite multiple other disciplines to the Attending to such questions could enable Latina/o criti-
3 literary table. Fresh approaches to José Joaquín Fernández de cism to jettison some of its poststructuralist ballast. But this
4 Lizardi, Gertrudis Goméz de Avellaneda, Pablo Neruda, or collection of essays does much more than use evolutionary
5 Gioconda Belli can invigorate the criticism of early Latin ecocriticism as a replacement for current forms of postcolo-
6 American literature, putting down roots that allow the entire nial criticism. It combines the old and the new to synthesize
7 corpus to grow into new critical areas. Hoeg’s application a new and better kind of criticism.
8 of modern evolutionary theory to Euclides de Cunha’s fin
9 de siècle Os Sert es and Rómulo Gallegos’ (South) American BIBLIOGRAPHY
10 Naturalist novel Doña Ana are good examples of the type
11 of literary Darwinism that should soon begin to appear in Anaya, Rudolfo A., and Francisco Lomelí, eds. Aztlán: Essays on the
12 mass-market literary textbooks. Rivera-Barnes’ complica- Chicano Homeland. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico
13 tion of territorial and “border” considerations in Horacio Press, 1989.
14 Quiroga’s stories is just one of many discussions of “place” Anzaldúa, Gloria. Borderlands/La Frontera: The New Mestiza. San
15 and homeland influenced by anthropology in this book. Francisco: Aunt Lute Books, 1987.
16 The modern human trend toward symbolic homelands ———, ed. This Bridge We Call Home. New York: Routledge, 2002.
Basu, Paul. “Hunting Down Homeland: Reflections on Home-
17 probably has a long evolutionary history. It allows certain
land and the Search for Identity in the Scottish Diaspora.”
18 subgroups to transcend their territorial needs, migrate fre- In Contested Landscapes: Movement, Exile, and Place, edited by
19 quently and repeatedly without significant distress, and open Barbara Bender and Margot Winer, 333–48. Oxford: Oxford
20 new niches for potential exploitation. But Rivera-Barnes University Press, 2001.
21 and Hoeg suggest that detachment from territory equals Bhabha, Homi. The Location of Culture. London: Routledge, 1994.
22 detachment from the consequences of exploitation. Their
23 new theory asks for a type of transcendence that might NOTES
24 have appealed to the late Anzaldúa. They remind us, for
25 instance, that the Central Valley of Mexico was totally trans- 1. Bhabha, Location, 9.
26 formed from “pristine wilderness” into a “totally humanized 2. Anzaldúa, Borderlands, 3.
27 landscape” well before European arrival (42). They ask not 3. Anzaldúa, This Bridge, 2–3.
28 just for respect for the New World, but for all worlds and 4. Anaya and Lomelí, Aztlán, ii, 1–5.
29 all peoples. Consequently, they promote awareness of the 5. Basu, “Hunting Down Homeland,” 336.
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43

220 fiction

SP_TER2_31_218-220.indd 220 2/1/11 12:04 PM

 Divorce, Russian Style 1
2
3
4
Film Under Review 5
6
The Last Station (2009) 7
directed by Michael Hoffman per his screenplay based on Jay Parini’s novel. 8
9
10
OLGA M. COOKE If you are concerned that one of the core principles of film reviewing might 11
BRETT COOKE be violated—that we will reveal the denouement—stop reading HERE. In all 12
probability our warning is redundant: few who go to this dramatization of 13
Count Leo Tolstoy’s death will not already know how it turns out. It is titled, 14
after all, The LAST Station. Secondly, it will hardly be news to many that the 15
great novelist and his wife of forty-eight years had not only marital difficulties 16
but also severe ideological differences—differences so severe that one night in 17
October 1910 the eighty-two-year-old count fled his house with the help of
18
some of his most devout “Tolstoyans,” renouncing his marriage, his property,
19
and his title. Unfortunately, his late resolve to live according to his own pre-
20
cepts did not last long. He caught influenza and expired two weeks later at
the obscure train station of Astapovo. What piques our curiosity is the fact that 21
popular interest in his marriage persists a century later. 22
Tolstoy’s flight sparked the first media circus. His dramatic action was the 23
subject of headlines throughout the Western world. Newspapermen flocked to 24
Astapovo. Cameras caught the infamous moment when the countess arrived 25
at the station, only to be refused access to her husband’s deathbed. (She was 26
later admitted.) As archival footage at the end of the film suggests, Tolstoy was 27
the most famous artist in the world at the time of his death, perhaps less for 28
the novels he had written decades earlier than for his challenges to Russian 29
and Western social values: he advocated pacifism and the abolishment of pri- 30
vate property and had been excommunicated by the Orthodox Church. The 31
Tolstoy marriage had served as the prototype for marital relationships both 32
happy and troubled in many of his works, ranging from War and Peace and 33
Anna Karenina to stories like “The Devil,” which apparently relates the count’s 34
adulterous temptations, and the infamous Kreutzer Sonata, in which the nar- 35
rator kills his supposedly unfaithful wife. Tolstoy’s followers furiously tracked 36
developments in the couple’s largely public diaries and recorded them in their 37
numerous memoirs. The marriage anticipated modern interest in domestic strife 38
between couples such as the Windsors, Prince Charles and Princess Di, and 39
other tabloid superstars. 40
41
42
43

olga m. cooke and brett cooke 221

SP_TER2_32_221-223.indd 221 2/1/11 12:04 PM

 1 This famous couple disagreed about many issues, but
2 the film focuses chiefly on the count’s decision to bequest
3 his works to the public, at least to the society led by Vladi-
4 mir Chertkov that promised to promote his philosophy. That
5 choice of focus offers a point of purchase for an evocritical
6 analysis. Tolstoy’s last will could be seen as a great gesture
7 of unreciprocated altruism. But, until he left his house, there
8 were limits on that generosity, for he continued to live
9 on that same property. For decades his prosocial zeal was
10 countered by the countess, who argued that he should not
11 abandon the welfare of their children. Her advocacy of
12 traditional notions of inheritance could be regarded as a
13 typical instance of kin altruism. Their children split on the
14 issue, the older sons taking her side, whereas the youngest
15 daughter, Alexandra, allied herself with the extreme Tolstoy-
16 ans dedicated to carrying on his idealistic philosophy. (It
17 should be noted that one of us, Olga, immigrated to the
18 United States with the assistance of the Tolstoy Foundation,
19 which was established by Alexandra and financed by the
20 author’s royalties.)
21 Much comedy, including this largely sober film, is
22 based on an idealistic character’s vain attempt to follow
23 tactics contrary to those usually observed. We retain a
24 high degree of behavioral freedom, but more effort may
25 be expended in going against the grain. Vladimir Bulgakov,
26 played by James McAvoy, begins work as Tolstoy’s secretary,
27 vowing chastity, but in the film’s major “augmentation” of
28 the known history, he is soon stripped of his virginity by
29 another Tolstoyan, the free-loving Masha (Kerry Condon).
30 As Tolstoy (Christopher Plummer) himself admits, he is not
31 a very good Tolstoyan. He regales Bulgakov with accounts
32 of old affairs and, despite renouncing sexual relations, he
33 is enticed by the countess (Helen Mirren) to a roll in the
34 hay, possibly setting the cinematic record for geriatric sex.
35 Much of the achievement of the film lies in how Mir-
36 ren and Plummer humanize their very complex prototypes.
37 (Both performances were nominated for Oscars.) Director
38 Michael Hoffman highlights the struggle, day to day and
39 even impulse to impulse, between ideologically directed
40 intention and the natural tendencies of the flesh. Chertkov
41 is played by Paul Giamatti in such a way as to bring out
42 the “devil” (“chert”) in his surname. McAvoy’s Bulgakov
43
222 fiction
SP_TER2_32_221-223.indd 222
is hired by Chertkov to spy on the countess but gradually
becomes her supporter. He is like a Greek chorus; Hoff-
man uses him to guide the viewer’s allegiance. Given the
open hostility between the beleaguered countess and Chert-
kov’s group, contending for Tolstoy’s soul and his property,
he has to negotiate his way between the opposing claims
of nepotistic altruism and an ideologically motivated but
“unnatural” commitment to true, selfless altruism.
The Tolstoys were hardly a unique case of marital
estrangement. So why the fascination with this particular
case? Far worse cases of betrayal, abandonment, and abuse
are abundant, even some involving other notables. Never-
theless, numerous accounts have been written about this
particular marriage, several by those close to the conflict,
including Chertkov, Alexandra, and the countess herself.
The film is directly based on Jay Parini’s novel under the
same title, and was produced with the cooperation of the
Museum-Estate of Leo Tolstoy at Yasnaya Polyana.1 In fact,
the Tolstoy museum in Moscow has just announced pub-
lication of the countess’ full autobiography, My Life, which
it had long withheld.2 An evolutionist perspective might
be especially useful for making sense of such exceptional
instances of hysterical and insatiable interest. Tolstoy was
justly famous as a writer, especially for his early works,
but by 1910 those were long in the past. His philosophi-
cal beliefs now have few adherents. It is commonly recog-
nized that he could not have written his novels without the
countess’ very active assistance, inasmuch as she transcribed,
edited, and offered suggestions for his works—surely no wife
ever contributed more to a great writer’s career—while also
bearing him thirteen children and running the affairs of
their estate. She devoted her life to his and, as a result, was
otherwise unknown. Nevertheless, yet another biography
just appeared.3
The Tolstoys’ continuing marriage was an ongoing
contradiction to his attack on the institution as a form of
slavery and a source of repulsion. Therefore its fate was
especially salient to the validity of his perspective, one that
challenges a major feature of human nature: anthropologists
observe a contract of fidelity and support in exchange for
childbearing exists in every observed society.4 Given that
human beings enjoy (some might say are cursed by) a “plu-
2/1/11 12:04 PM
 ralistic mating repertoire,” and given that long-term mating BIBLIOGRAPHY 1
bears substantial adaptive benefits, it follows that we are fas- 2
cinated by efforts to negotiate the many alternatives offered.5 Campbell, Lorne, and Bruce J. Ellis. “Commitment, Love, and Mate 3
Each couple’s experience will be somewhat different, and Retention.” In The Handbook of Evolutionary Psychology, edited 4
intimate conflict in even ordinary marriages attracts our by David M. Buss, 419–46. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley and 5
interest. All the more, then, the nineteenth century’s most Sons, 2005. 6
publicized battle of the sexes. Parini, Jay. The Last Station. New York: Henry Holt, 1990. 7
Popoff, Alexandra. Sofia Tolstoy: A Biography. New York: Free Press,
Plummer’s Tolstoy is struggling to free himself from 8
2010.
human nature, and Mirren’s Countess is going with the 9
Schmitt, David P. “Fundamentals of Human Mating Strategies.”
current of human nature. That fact alone offers a cinematic, In The Handbook of Evolutionary Psychology, edited by David 10
thespian opportunity to bias the audience in the Countess’ M. Buss, 258–91. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley and Sons, 2005. 11
favor. Mirren’s role allows for expressing a much broader Tolstaya, Sofia Andreevna. My Life. Edited by Andrew Donskov. 12
emotional range. She bares her soul with humor, fury (espe- Translated by John Wordsworth and Arkadi Klioutchanski. 13
cially when she trains her pistol on Chertkov’s photograph), Ottawa: University of Ottawa Press, 2010. 14
and desperation (including her attempt to drown herself in 15
their pond). Meanwhile, Plummer’s Tolstoy becomes ever NOTES 16
more stolid, fixated on his single, unnatural idea. Hints are 17
given that Tolstoy still loves his wife, but those hints conflict 1. Parini, Last Station. 18
with his actions. By seeking to repress his human nature, he 2. Tolstoy, My Life. 19
paralyzes himself emotionally. Standing in for the sympathy 3. Popoff, Sofia Tolstoy. 20
of the audience, Bulgakov ultimately abandons Tolstoy in 4. Schmitt, “Fundamentals,” 258. 21
order to seek a fuller (and more adaptive) style of life. 5. Campbell and Ellis, “Commitment,” 422. 22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43

olga m. cooke and brett cooke 223

SP_TER2_32_221-223.indd 223 2/1/11 12:04 PM

 evolutionary theory past and present
evolutionary theory past and present

“It’s Only a Theory,” or At My Back I Cringe to Hear /

The Texas School Board Drawing Near

Books Under Review

The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution
by Richard Dawkins. Free Press, 2009.
Why Evolution Is True
by Jerry A. Coyne. Viking, 2009.

HAROLD FROMM Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is
those who know little, and not those who know much, who so positively
assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science.
—Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man, Introduction (1871)

In a moment of cocky self-assurance, I told myself that reviewing Richard

Dawkins’ latest book, The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution,
would be a breeze. Familiar stuff, same-old same-old, I confidently thought as
I geared up for the task.
Wrong!
The physical book alone should have given away the show. From its
larger than routine type size and generous spacing between the lines to its
aesthetically gratifying paper, not to mention the very attractive black and
white drawings throughout complemented by several sections of glossy colored
illustrations, this sensuous physical artifact was definitely telling me something,
to wit: the Free Press regards this as an important, maybe even a classic book.
And if so, they’re right!
I couldn’t help trying to imagine what the fate of reading might be in
the not-so-distant future if Kindles and iPads were ever to become the default
matrices for the experience of reading. There can be little doubt that the vehicle
is an aspect of the significance of the text.
After the magisterial achievement of The Ancestor’s Tale, how much moti-
vation and stamina could Dawkins possibly have left for a roll in the muck

224 evolutionary theory past and present

SP_TER2_33_224-229.indd 224 2/1/11 12:05 PM

 with creationists? “More than 40 percent of the Ameri- that evolution could accomplish the amount of change that 1
can people believe literally in the story of Noah’s Ark. We it took to transform a fish into a human” when two million 2
should be able to ignore them and get on with our science, centuries are involved (81–82). 3
but we can’t afford to because they control school boards, In the chapter on methods of dating the age of fos- 4
they home school their children . . . and they include many sils and geological remains, Dawkins goes into great detail, 5
members of the United States Congress” (269–70). And teaching us a good deal about dendrochronology (tree ring 6
yet, instead of world-weariness, what results here is another dating), radioactive half-lives, and carbon dating, which he 7
Olympian performance. characterizes as types of clocks more complex than ordinary 8
Early on, Dawkins reprints a cartoon that sets the tick-tocks, digital watches, or the visible physical locations of 9
stage for what follows: seven creatures are seated at a bar, fossils in rock strata. Still, ocular evidence is often enough 10
drinking. They range from a fish at one end, through vari- for seeing evolution in action, as when bacteria and fruit 11
ous mammals, an ape, and then a Homo sapiens at the other flies are bred in labs so that thousands of generations can 12
end, all being lectured to by a very Homo sapiensy clerical be witnessed as they undergo mutation. As for the so-called 13
type wearing glasses, who says, “I still say it’s only a theory.” missing links (to which a chapter is devoted), they are less 14
The four hundred or so pages that follow demonstrate why missing all the time. I write this as reports have surfaced of 15
Dawkins is such a celebrated personage. Immense knowl- the discovery of 1,500 post-Cambrian fossils in Morocco 16
edge, uncommon rhetorical skill, and very little obeisance that revise the datelines and fill in various gaps in the evo- 17
to pieties. Right off the bat he sticks it to Plato, the true lutionary calendar. 18
begetter of all our denialist woes, for his idealist essential- In an especially inspired chapter, “You Did It Yourself 19
ism. “The discovery of evolution was held back by the in Nine Months,” Dawkins finishes off once and for all 20
dead hand of Plato” (21). (Twenty-first-century essentialist the “irreducible complexity” mantra of intelligent design 21
“history-deniers” are given their own what-for in a little fanatics who seem completely impenetrable when it comes 22
appendix.) But this book is not merely “an anti-religion to the concept of gradual development of complex func- 23
book,” Dawkins remarks. “I’ve done that, it’s another T-shirt, tions that are nevertheless viable at each stage. They can’t 24
this is not the place to wear it again. . . . Rather, I real- seem to understand that the intermediate stages between 25
ized that the evidence for evolution was nowhere explicitly all those primitive stages and the sublime “us” do quite 26
set out, and that this was a serious gap that I needed to well, however clumsily, with the equipment they’ve got. 27
close” (6). Of course, he can’t resist other jabs at superstition There is no blueprint, no knowledge or plan in advance 28
when the occasions arise. (A ten-thousand-year-old planet, that results in complex creatures. Rather, like the sheet of 29
anyone? As I write this, the Texas school board is ensuring paper that origami transforms into complex objects, one of 30
the creationist spin of future science textbooks.) Dawkins’ inspired analogies for development, “Your hands 31
After dealing with the “only a theory” folks, patiently may do the folding, but you are emphatically not following 32
explaining (as does Jerry Coyne) the meaning of “theory” in a blueprint for a Chinese junk. . . . You are following a set 33
the sciences as opposed to everyday life, Dawkins provides of folding rules that seem to have no connection with the 34
an especially rich chapter on the ways in which artificial end product until it finally emerges like a butterfly from 35
and natural selection tend to blend, strikingly so in the its chrysalis” (224). Development (as embryology) does not 36
case of the effects of male birdsongs on females and the follow global rules, only local ones. (And there is an implied 37
results of selective breeding of wolves for tameness, which connection here with the “folding” of proteins.) “A cell is 38
brought with it other, unexpected, physical traits along for a versatile chemical factory, capable of spewing out mas- 39
the ride. “If we imagine the sheer quantity of difference that sive quantities of a wide variety of different substances, the 40
separates a pye-dog from a peke, which took only a few choice being made by which enzyme is present. And how 41
centuries of evolution . . . it becomes rather easy to accept is that choice made? By which gene is turned on” (241). We 42
43

harold fromm 225

SP_TER2_33_224-229.indd 225 2/1/11 12:05 PM

 1 learn a good deal here too about what it means to “fold”
2 proteins: “When a gene is turned on in, say, a cell of the
3 pancreas, its sequence of code letters directly determines the
4 sequence of amino acids in a protein; and the sequence of
5 amino acids determines . . . the shape into which the pro-
6 tein folds itself; and the shape into which the protein folds
7 itself determines the precisely shaped sockets that marry up
8 substances drifting around in the cell” (242).
9 There are brilliant digressions throughout that instan-
10 tiate the more difficult ideas, though Dawkins is aware
11 that not all his readers like his digressions (244). “I hope
12 my euphoric digression on the elegance of Caenorhabditis
13 research has not distracted us too far from the point I was
14 making about how cell types change in their shape and
15 character as they branch away from one another in the
16 embryonic family tree” (245). Far from it, since these rich
17 asides are repositories of difficult concepts made graphic.
18 After a look at the ways in which plate tectonics have
19 influenced speciation, Dawkins goes on to surprise us with
20 examples of how stupid “intelligent design” really is, given
21 the serious “design” flaws in most organisms. Since natural
22 selection cannot invent anything from scratch, its work is
23 mainly to patch up existing low-survival structures with
24 modifications, add-ons, or subtractions. The chest arteries
25 as survivors of fish gills, the detours taken by the laryngeal
26 nerve in humans that in a giraffe are “beyond a joke”(360),
27 the preposterous route of our vas deferens from testis to
28 penis: “History is written all over the body, not just once but
29 repeatedly, in exuberant palimpsest” (367). Consider too the
30 flightless birds whose vestigial wings serve other purposes
31 or gradually diminish and disappear altogether. And those
32 roadrunners outside my window here in Tucson can do a
33 few flaps of their wings but not much more.
34 Even the arms race that increases the skills of preda-
35 tor and victim is testimony to the incompetence of the
36 Creator: the cheetah’s efficiency as a killer is diminished by
37 the gazelle’s increasing speed as a runner, “a heavy dose of
38 futility” (384), since legs that are long and thin for running
39 are more likely to break, ultimately fatal whether it hap-
40 pens to gazelle or cheetah. “Natural selection can drive a
41 population to extinction, while constantly favouring, to the
42 bitter end, those competitive genes that are destined to be
43
226 evolutionary theory past and present
SP_TER2_33_224-229.indd 226
the last to go extinct” (390). And the conclusion to such a
reality? “Natural selection is all futile” (392).
In the last chapter of this remarkable book, “There
Is Grandeur in This View of Life,” Dawkins exhibits a final
display of his own virtuosity by analyzing the famous con-
cluding sentences of Darwin’s masterpiece. Although he is
dubious about higher animals being “the most exalted object
which we are capable of conceiving,” he readily assents to
the “war of nature” and “famine and death” as the engines
of evolution. He explains his omission of “by the Creator,”
in his quotation of “originally breathed into a few forms
or into one,” as his own preference for the first edition of
On the Origin of Species over the later ones that inserted it
to pander to early critics. In defense of the omission, he
quotes from a letter by Darwin to Joseph Hooker in 1863:
“I have long regretted that I truckled to public opinion, and
used the Pentateuchal term of creation, by which I really
meant ‘appeared by some wholly unknown process.’ ” (404).
The discovery of genes, DNA, and multitudes of new
fossils since Darwin’s speculations has resulted in major
refinements that Dawkins has at his disposal. So with regard
to “into a few forms or one,” he is in a position to tell
us that
Darwin was right to hedge his bets, but today
we are pretty certain that all living creatures on
this planet are descended from a single ances-
tor. The evidence . . . is that the genetic code
is universal, all but identical across animals,
plants, fungi, bacteria, archaea and viruses. The
64-word dictionary, by which three-letter DNA
words are translated into twenty amino acids
and one punctuation mark, which means “start
reading here” or “stop reading here,” is the same
64-word dictionary wherever you look in the
living kingdoms. (408–09)
As for the notion of “from so simple a beginning,” Dawkins
is prepared to concede that “we know little more than
Darwin did about how it [evolution] got started in the
first place,” but undaunted, Dawkins offered miscellaneous
speculations unsuited to summary here.
2/1/11 12:05 PM
 In a brief appendix, Dawkins gives the history-deniers nents: evolution, gradualism, speciation, com- 1
one last what-for. Are they worth it? Is there a limit to mon ancestry, natural selection, and nonselective 2
tolerance of stupidity or, to borrow a Kierkegaardian phrase, mechanisms of evolutionary change. (3) 3
faith in the absurd? Dawkins answers this question: “More 4
than 40% of Americans deny that humans evolved from In “Written in the Rocks,” one of several rich chap- 5
other animals, and think that we—and by implication all ters, Coyne explains that even though there have been an 6
of life—were created by God within the last 10,000 years. estimated seventeen million to four billion species on the 7
This book is necessary.” So be it! planet—in other words, mostly “gaps”—the fossil record is 8
Like Dawkins’ book, Jerry Coyne’s Why Evolution Is revelatory nonetheless, especially since we now have such 9
True was published in 2009, but both authors were clearly useful methods of dating it. After accounts of plankton and 10
aware of each other’s production and, indeed, by one method trilobites, Coyne asks, “How did early fish evolve to survive 11
or another (given the time constraints) they each managed to on land?” What was the transitional phase like? “After five 12
make at least one quite cordial cross-reference. And why not? long years of fruitless and expensive search,” he reports, his 13
Despite these books’ coverage of similar territory, they are colleague Neil Shubin “finally hit pay dirt” on Ellesmere 14
hardly redundant. Coyne has been a professor of ecology and Island in the Arctic Ocean north of Canada. “When Shubin 15
evolution at the University of Chicago for more than twenty first saw the fossil face poking out of the rock, he knew 16
years now, with a specialty in genetics and species origins that that he had at last found his transitional form. In honor 17
is pretty apparent from the emphases of his book. Dawkins’ of the local Inuit people and the donor who helped fund 18
blurb for Coyne on the book jacket is characteristic of his the expeditions, the fossil was named Tiktaalik roseae . . . a 19
ebullience and helps to define the differences in persona direct link between the earlier lobefinned fish and the later 20
between the two authors and their work. “Anybody who amphibians” (37). One of the many beautiful drawings illus- 21
doesn’t believe in evolution is stupid, insane, or hasn’t read trating the book shows how Tiktaalik serves as a stepping 22
Jerry Coyne,” he writes, among other things. And it’s hard to stone to the early footed fish that eventually became us. 23
dispute that anyone who happens to read these two books “Tiktaalik shows that our ancestors were flat-headed preda- 24
seriatim as I did, and who nonetheless continues to deny the tory fish who lurked in the shallow waters of streams. It is a 25
fact of evolution, is clearly certifiable and should move to fossil that marvelously connects fish with amphibians” (38). 26
Wasilla, Alaska, or Texas. If Dawkins is the rhetorical virtuoso, In a chapter on vestiges, embryos, and bad design, 27
literary, allusive, demotic, multimedia, irreverent, Coyne is the Coyne, like Dawkins, shows the inability of evolution to 28
clean-prosed, learned descendant of Hume, though not quite clear the decks and start from scratch, so that many species 29
as ironic. If you think lucid, transparent writing is a cinch to have either disappeared altogether or survived as a result of 30
produce, think again. It’s the most difficult of all. cockamamie workarounds by natural selection. “Organisms 31
Coyne’s first chapter sets the stage for what follows: are palimpsests of history—evolutionary history. Within the 32
bodies of animals and plants lie clues to their ancestry, clues 33
Life on earth evolved gradually beginning with that are testimony to evolution. . . . What’s more, in their 34
one primitive species—perhaps a self-replicating development from embryos, many species go through con- 35
molecule—that lived more than 3.5 billion years tortions of form that are bizarre: organs and other features 36
ago; it then branched out over time, throw- appear, and then change dramatically or even disappear 37
ing off many new and diverse species; and the completely before birth” (56). And when you see a photo- 38
mechanism for most (but not all) of evolution- graph of a human infant born with the rudiments of a tail 39
ary change is natural selection. (that will need to be surgically removed) even a somewhat 40
When you break that statement down, dense specimen of Homo sapiens might begin to think ill 41
you find that it really consists of six compo- of a supposedly intelligent designer. 42
43

harold fromm 227

SP_TER2_33_224-229.indd 227 2/1/11 12:05 PM

 1 In a chapter on biogeography, the unlikely distri-
2 bution of rare plants and animals at only certain points
3 around the globe is explained by means of fossils of the
4 Glossopteris tree, “scattered in swatches across the southern
5 continents. The pattern can’t be explained by overseas dis-
6 persal, because Glossopteris had large, heavy seeds that almost
7 certainly couldn’t float. Could this be evidence for creation
8 [italics added] of the plant on different continents? Not so
9 fast” (98–99). The explanation is irrefutable: during the late
10 Permian period the giant continent of Gondwana had not
11 yet broken apart into the ones we recognize today. “It isn’t
12 the trees that migrated from continent to distant continent,
13 then: it is the continents themselves that moved, carrying
14 the trees with them” (99). In sum, Coyne concludes, “The
15 main lesson of biogeography is that only evolution can
16 explain the diversity of life on continents and islands. But
17 there is another lesson as well: the distribution of life on
18 earth reflects a blend of chance and lawfulness” (109).
19 Turning pointedly to “us,” Coyne tells the story of
20 Lucy, the 3.2-million-year-old fossil found in 1974 and
21 named after the Beatles’ “Lucy in the sky with diamonds,”
22 a hot item at the time. “She was between twenty and thirty
23 years old, three and a half feet tall, weighing a scant six-
24 ty pounds, and possibly afflicted with arthritis. But most
25 important, she walked on two legs” (200). How do we know
26 that? “From the way that the femur (thighbone) connects
27 to the pelvis at one end and to the knee at its other. In a
28 bipedally walking primate like ourselves, the femurs angle
29 in toward each other from the hips so that the center of
30 gravity stays in one place while walking. . . . In knuckle-
31 walking apes, the femurs are slightly splayed out, making
32 them bowlegged” (200). So if you look at the fit of femur
33 with pelvis, you can tell if a creature walked on two legs.
34 Fossils tell an evolving story, even with gaps.
35 So much that was unavailable to Darwin is now com-
36 mon information we take for granted, yet the discoveries
37 continue to grow and to surprise us anew with a still more
38 enriched picture of our own evolution. Not only the fossil
39 record, which seems to be expanding rapidly, but the genetic
40 record made possible by DNA analyses. Of course politics
41 always intervenes in the acquisition of knowledge, having
42 its own axes to grind and bulls to gore. A few years ago
43
228 evolutionary theory past and present
SP_TER2_33_224-229.indd 228
to speak of “race” was verboten as little more than bigotry
(my very use of scare quotes gives away the show) but now
it is back with more multivalence and subtlety than ever,
which Coyne rightly reviews with approval for its real world
information. Moreover, as a putdown to our sense of smug
superiority, we were told how tiny a percentage of genetic
difference exists between apes and us. Now, however, Coyne
can deflect us into unlearning yesterday’s political correctness:
Now that we’ve finally sequenced the genomes
of both chimp and human, we can see directly
that more than 80 percent of all the proteins
shared by the two species differ in at least one
amino acid. Since our genomes have about
25,000 protein-making genes, that translates
to a difference in the sequence of more than
20,000 of them. . . . More than 6 percent of
genes found in humans simply aren’t found in
any form in chimpanzees. (211)
Why Evolution Is True concludes with a chapter out-
lining some of the moral and ethical concerns and fears
that have developed over the years about the meaning of
human life in a purely material and naturalistic universe.
Most of these concerns have the stale aroma of antiquated
ultra-conservative religious narcissism rather than “piety.” As
for the small band of intellectuals who waste their time and
others’ with casuistries to reconcile religion and science, the
few eminent scientists among them constitute a sort of rear-
guard Tea Party of feel-goodism. The seventeenth-century
physician and brilliant prose stylist, Sir Thomas Browne,
bragged modestly in his Religio Medici (“the religion of a
doctor”) that he was a “true amphibian” who easily lived in
“divided and distinguished worlds,” by which he meant the
world of science and the world of conventional piety and
faith. But what was charming in him four hundred years
ago is just metaphysical pie-throwing today.
These first-rate books by Dawkins and Coyne ought
to serve as a terminus ad quem of books attacking creation-
ism and intelligent design. Is it necessary still to produce
books against geocentrism, the theory of the humours, the
self-existence of souls, spirits, and spooks? There’s now not
2/1/11 12:05 PM
 much left to say about creationism, given the overwhelm- person of letters, just as great, as noble, that. Our actions 1
ing collection of multidisciplinary evidence that Dawkins irreducible, treading in the footprints of Shakespeare (he 2
and Coyne bring to bear on the truth of evolution. As for wore a hundred pairs of shoes at once; just try tracing those). 3
the “it’s only a theory” folks, maybe it’s now time to leave But don’t even get me started on the brain. It’s the 4
them to heaven—or the Templeton Foundation. tomalley of a lobster, this oozing, discolored thing, and as 5
we get closer it only gets messier—parts grafted willy-nilly 6
We are afraid of the brain—there, let us say it. Maybe, like upon parts, neural sprawl like scrap-metal neighborhoods, 7
icons in certain religions, or like Gorgons’ heads, the brain conurbations like the crumples in a wad of paper. Keep it 8
is something we are not supposed to look upon. Or, to be out of sight—and whatever you do, don’t let it ooze out 9
more evolutionarily sound, we have not evolved to look onto the literature, damn you. 10
at the brain. We have evolved, rather, to not look upon it, But herein lies an irony, because it is the brain, at 11
to overlook it. If we are looking at the brain, something least for the humanist, that is too neat and literature too 12
is wrong, seriously awry; something’s broken, been cracked, messy—too convoluted and involuted, too cultural, essen- 13
the turtle de-carapaced, flies gathering, the innards come tially, to be reduced to scientific terminology and concepts 14
out. Someone is dead or dying, and not going gentle into and causal regularities. Reduction, for the typical humanist, 15
that good night. Maybe that’s it. is a desirable end goal for sauces and not much else. So that 16
Or maybe it’s that literature, no matter how gruesome in six responses in the New York Times to an article about 17
or dispiriting in terms of its subject matter, retains beauty. Lisa Zunshine and colleagues studying Theory of Mind in 18
The spread of words across the page—what vistas, what an fMRI (the brain sloshed out onto the pages of the Times), 19
landscapes in portrait! Oh, to be a bug and to be able to we get a lot of skepticism and far less enthusiasm.1 Even 20
traverse facing pages of text word by word, letter by letter, Marco Roth, for whom I was rooting after his splendid essay 21
to descend into the valley of the crease and reascend on for The Believer on the ascendancy of the “neuronovel,”2 22
the other side, symmetrical only not, the letters clumped observes mainly that the neuro-evolutionary theorists tend 23
together like jacarandas and tall and drooping voluptuously to choose socially conservative novels that confirm their 24
like sunflowers, gleaming like corrugated roofs. Or to be a theories. Bleh. 25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43

harold fromm 229

SP_TER2_33_224-229.indd 229 2/1/11 12:05 PM

 1 Darwin Lives
2
3
4
5 Books Under Review
6
7 The Origin Then and Now: An Interpretive Guide to the Origin of Species
8 by David N. Reznick. Princeton University Press, 2010.
9
10
Darwin’s Origin of Species: A Biography
by Janet Browne. Atlantic Monthly Press, 2006.
11
12 Charles and Emma: The Darwins’ Leap of Faith
13 by Deborah Heiligman. Henry Holt and Company, 2009.
14 Darwin’s Sacred Cause: How a Hatred of Slavery Shaped Darwin’s Views on Human Evolution
15 by Adrian Desmond and James Moore. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 2009.
16
17 Defining Darwin: Essays on the History and Philosophy of Evolutionary Biology
18 by Michael Ruse. Prometheus Books, 2009.
19 Remarkable Creatures: Epic Adventures in the Search for the Origins of Species
20 by Sean B. Carroll. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 2009.
21
22
23 FRANCISO J. AYALA Darwin occupies an exalted place in the history of Western thought, deservedly
24 receiving credit for the theory of evolution. In The Origin of Species, he laid out
25 the evidence demonstrating the evolution of organisms. Darwin characteristi-
26 cally did not use the term evolution, but referred to the evolution of organisms
27 by the phrase “common descent with modification” and similar expressions.
28 However, Darwin accomplished something much more important for intel-
29 lectual history than demonstrating evolution. Indeed, accumulating evidence
30 for common descent with diversification may very well have been a subsidiary
31 objective of Darwin’s masterpiece. Darwin’s Origin is, first and foremost, a
32 sustained argument to solve the problem of how to account scientifically for
33 the design of organisms. Darwin seeks to explain the adaptations of organisms,
34 their complexity, diversity, and marvelous contrivances as the result of natural
35 processes. Darwin brings about the evidence for evolution because evolution
36 is a necessary consequence of his theory of design.
37 There is a version of the history of the ideas that sees a parallel between
38 the Copernican and the Darwinian revolutions. In this view, the Copernican
39 Revolution consisted in displacing the Earth from its previously accepted locus
40 as the center of the universe, moving it to a subordinate place as just one
41 more planet revolving around the sun. In congruous manner, the Darwinian
42 Revolution is viewed as consisting of the displacement of humans from their
43

230 evolutionary theory past and present

SP_TER2_34_230-239.indd 230 2/1/11 12:06 PM

 exalted position as the center of life on earth, with all other All physical phenomena could be accounted for as long as 1
species created for the service of humankind. According to the causes were adequately known. 2
this version of intellectual history, Copernicus had accom- The advances of physical science brought about by the 3
plished his revolution with the heliocentric theory of the Copernican Revolution had driven mankind’s conception 4
solar system. Darwin’s achievement emerged from his theory of the universe to a split-personality state of affairs, which 5
of organic evolution. (Sigmund Freud refers to these two persisted well into the mid-nineteenth century. Scientific 6
revolutions as “outrages” inflicted upon humankind’s self- explanations, derived from natural laws, dominated the 7
image and adds a third one, his own. He sees psychoanalysis world of nonliving matter, on the Earth as in the heavens. 8
as the “third and most bitter blow upon man’s craving for Supernatural explanations, which depended on the unfath- 9
grandiosity,” revealing that man’s ego “is not even master in omable deeds of the Creator, were accepted as explanations 10
his own house.”1) of the origin and configuration of living creatures. Authors 11
What the standard version of the Copernican and such as William Paley in his Natural Theology (1802) had 12
Darwinian revolutions says is correct but inadequate. It developed the ‘‘argument from design,’’ the notion that the 13
misses what is most important about these two intellec- complex design of organisms could not have come about by 14
tual revolutions, namely, that they ushered in the beginning chance, or by the mechanical laws of physics, chemistry, and 15
of science in the modern sense. They can thus jointly be astronomy, but was rather accomplished by an Omnipotent 16
seen as the one Scientific Revolution, with two stages, the Deity, just as the complexity of a watch, designed to tell 17
Copernican and the Darwinian. time, was accomplished by an intelligent watchmaker. 18
The Copernican Revolution was launched with the Paley’s Natural Theology is a sustained argument-from- 19
publication in 1543, the year of Nicolaus Copernicus’ death, design, claiming that the living world provides compelling 20
of his De revolutionibus orbium celestium (On the Revolutions of evidence of being designed by an omniscient and omnipo- 21
the Celestial Spheres), and bloomed with the publication in tent Creator. The argument has two parts: first, that organ- 22
1687 of Isaac Newton’s Philosophiae naturalis principia math- isms give evidence of being designed; second, that only an 23
ematica (The Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy). omnipotent God could account for the perfection, multi- 24
The discoveries by Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo, Newton, tude, and diversity of designs. Paley’s keystone claim is that 25
and others, in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, had “there cannot be design without a designer; contrivance, 26
shown that Earth is not the center of the universe, but a without a contriver; order, without choice; . . . means suit- 27
small planet rotating around an average star; that the universe able to an end, and executing their office in accomplishing 28
is immense in space and in time; and that the motions of that end, without the end ever having been contemplated.”2 29
the planets around the sun can be explained by the same Darwin completed the Copernican Revolution by 30
simple laws that account for the motion of physical objects drawing out for biology the notion of nature as a lawful 31
on our planet. Laws such as f = m x a (force = mass x system of matter in motion that human reason can explain 32
acceleration); or the inverse-square law of attraction, f = without recourse to supernatural agencies. Darwin’s greatest 33
g(m1m2)/r2 (the force of attraction between two bodies is accomplishment was to show that the complex organization 34
directly proportional to their masses, but inversely related and functionality of living beings can be explained as the 35
to the square of the distance between them). result of a natural process—natural selection. The origin and 36
These and other discoveries greatly expanded human adaptations of organisms in their profusion and wondrous 37
knowledge. The conceptual revolution they brought about variations were thus brought into the realm of science. 38
was more fundamental yet: a commitment to the postulate In the Middle Ages, Christian philosophers and theo- 39
that the universe obeys immanent laws that account for nat- logians had argued that the functional organization of liv- 40
ural phenomena. The workings of the universe were brought ing beings evinces the existence of an Omnipotent and 41
into the realm of science: explanation through natural laws. Omniscient Designer. In the thirteenth century St. Thomas 42
43

francisco j. ayala 231

SP_TER2_34_230-239.indd 231 2/1/11 12:06 PM

 1 Aquinas had used an argument from design as his ‘‘fifth way’’
2 to demonstrate the existence of God. Aquinas’ argument was
3 based on the ‘‘harmony’’ of the universe and all its parts.
4 Paley elaborates the argument from design with extensive
5 knowledge of biological detail and with greater cogency
6 than it has ever been done by any other author, before or
7 since. Paley brings in all sorts of biological knowledge, from
8 the geographic distribution of species to the interactions
9 between predators and their prey, the interactions between
10 the sexes, the camel’s stomach and the woodpecker’s tongue,
11 the compound eyes of insects and the spider’s web. He even
12 explores and rejects the possibility of a sort of “natural
13 selection”: organisms may have come about by chance in
14 an endless multiplicity of forms; those now in existence are
15 those that happened to be functionally organized because
16 they are the only ones able to survive and reproduce. Paley’s
17 evidence for intelligent design and against chance derives
18 from a notion that some contemporary authors have named
19 ‘‘irreducible complexity,’’ which he calls “relation”: the pres-
20 ence of a great variety of parts interacting with each other
21 to produce an effect, which cannot be accomplished if any
22 of the parts is missing.
23 Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection dis-
24 posed of Paley’s arguments: the adaptations of organisms
25 are not outcomes of chance, but of a process that, over
26 time, causes the gradual accumulation of features beneficial
27 to organisms. There is “design” in the living world: eyes
28 are designed for seeing, wings for flying, and kidneys for
29 regulating the composition of the blood. But the design of
30 organisms is not intelligent, as it would be expected from
31 an engineer, but imperfect and worse: defects, dysfunctions,
32 oddities, waste, and cruelty pervade the living world.
33
34 David N. Reznick, in his magnificent The Origin Then and
35 Now: An Interpretive Guide to the Origin of Species, dedicates
36 part 1 (chapters 1–7) to natural selection’s explanation of
37 design, with chapters 4 (“The Struggle for Existence”) and
38 5 (“Natural Selection I”) developing the core of the argu-
39 ment. Reznick explains that “Darwin begins his argument
40 for natural selection with a discourse about the domestica-
41 tion of plants and animals” (38). Repeated breeding of plants
42 and animals with derived characteristics yields over many
43
232 evolutionary theory past and present
SP_TER2_34_230-239.indd 232
generations distinct varieties, such as dog or cattle breeds,
or the exotic flocks of pigeon fanciers. Darwin’s admitted
difficulty was that breeders and naturalists did not understand
the laws of inheritance. Darwin never learned of Mendel’s
work, which was published in 1866 (not in 1865, as Reznick
has it, p. 46), but lay dormant until 1900. Reznick asserts
that “Darwin would have gained little had he read Mendel’s
paper” (46). Mendel’s genius was to demonstrate that inheri-
tance was particulate and that the entities (“genes”) that
account for trait differences retain their distinctness. Darwin’s
own hypothesis of pangenesis, elaborated at length in his
two-volume The Variation of Animals and Plants under Domesti-
cation, assumed blending inheritance, which raised difficulties
against his theory of natural selection, because trait differ-
ences would be halved each generation upon interbreeding.
Darwin completes his analogy between natural and
artificial selection early in the fourth chapter of Origin,
which Reznick (77) quotes at length:
Can it, then, be thought improbable, seeing
that variations useful to man have undoubtedly
occurred, that other variations useful in some
way to each being in the great and complex
battle of life, should sometimes occur in the
course of thousands of generations? If such do
occur, can we doubt (remembering that many
more individuals are born than can possibly
survive) that individuals having any advantage,
however slight, over others, would have the best
chance of surviving and of procreating their
kind? On the other hand, we may feel sure
that any variation in the least degree injurious
would be rigidly destroyed. This preservation of
favourable variations and the rejection of injuri-
ous variations, I call Natural Selection.
Darwin argues that hereditary adaptive variations
(‘‘variations useful in some way to each being’’) occasion-
ally appear in organisms, and that these are likely to increase
the survival and reproductive chances of their carriers. The
success of plant and animal breeders clearly shows the occa-
sional occurrence of useful hereditary variations. In nature,
2/1/11 12:06 PM
 over the generations, Darwin’s argument continues, favor- dance of well-selected and well-presented natural history 1
able variations will be preserved, multiplied, and conjoined; and genetic examples representative of current knowledge. 2
injurious ones will be eliminated. The Origin Then and Now should be highly recommended 3
Evolution can thus be seen as a two-step process. First, reading for any course on evolution or on Darwin, and 4
hereditary variation arises by mutation; second, selection surely I will recommend it to non-evolutionists, scientists 5
occurs by which useful variations increase in frequency and or not, as an excellent and elegantly written introduction 6
those that are less useful or injurious are eliminated over to evolution. 7
the generations. ‘‘Useful’’ and ‘‘injurious’’ are terms used by 8
Darwin. Individuals having useful variations ‘‘would have Janet Browne is author of a magnificent biography of Dar- 9
the best chance of surviving and procreating their kind.’’ As win in two volumes: Charles Darwin, Voyaging and Charles 10
a consequence, useful variations increase in frequency over Darwin, The Power of Place. Darwin’s Origin of Species: A 11
the generations, at the expense of those that are less useful Biography is a short book narrating the preliminary events 12
or injurious. Reznick illustrates the process with examples leading to the publication of Origin, the contemporary con- 13
from Darwin as well as his own. Reznick adroitly points troversy that followed, and its legacy. Browne sees Darwin’s 14
out that natural selection “can never cause the evolution of Origin as “one of the greatest scientific books ever writ- 15
a trait that is injurious to its possessor . . . [but] it will not ten” (1). 16
produce perfection” (94). Evolution by natural selection can On December 27, 1831, a few months after his gradu- 17
be described “as a process of tinkering rather than engineer- ation from Cambridge, Darwin sailed as a naturalist aboard 18
ing. An engineer designs something from scratch according the HMS Beagle on a round-the-world trip that lasted until 19
to some ideal, then assembles it from new materials. A tin- October 1836. Darwin often disembarked for extended trips 20
kerer instead makes do with whatever material is at hand ashore to collect natural specimens. The discovery of fossil 21
and modifies it to suit current needs” (95). bones from large extinct mammals in Argentina and the 22
Reznick returns to natural selection in part 2, Spe- observation of numerous species of finches in the Galápagos 23
ciation, chapter 10: “Natural Selection II” and elsewhere. Islands were among the events credited with stimulating 24
In chapter 2 of Origin Darwin documents “the continuum Darwin’s interest in how species originate. 25
between individual variations and species” (Reznick, 152). His Galápagos Islands observations may have been the 26
Darwin did not see a clear line of demarcation between most influential on Darwin’s thinking. The islands, which 27
varieties, subspecies, and species. “These differences blend lie on the equator six hundred miles off the west coast of 28
into each other in an insensible series.”3 Darwin sees a South America, had been named Galápagos (the Spanish 29
“continuous transition from differences between populations word for tortoises) by the Spanish explorers who discovered 30
to differences between species . . . but this is a judgment them, because of the abundance of giant tortoises, differ- 31
he passed at a time when there was not even a concept ent ones on different islands and all of them different from 32
of what a species was. . . . This is no longer the case. We those known anywhere else in the world. The Galápagos 33
now have the biological species concept, know the impor- tortoises sluggishly clanked their way around, feeding on 34
tance of reproductive isolation, and . . . have the genetic the vegetation and seeking the few pools of fresh water. 35
tools for . . . making inferences about the extent to which They would have been vulnerable to predators, had there 36
the gene pools of different species are separated from one been any on the islands. 37
another” (154, 160). Reznick makes the case with an elegant Darwin also found large lizards that feed, unlike any 38
summary of R. Highton’s investigation of speciation in east- others of their kind, on seaweed, and mockingbirds, quite 39
ern North American salamanders of the genus Plethodon. different from those found on the South American main- 40
As expected from the title, a feature of The Origin land. His observations of several kinds of finches that var- 41
Then and Now is updating Darwin’s theory. There is an abun- ied from island to island in their features, notably their 42
43

francisco j. ayala 233

SP_TER2_34_230-239.indd 233 2/1/11 12:06 PM

 1 distinctive beaks that were adapted to disparate feeding hab-
2 its—crushing nuts, probing for insects, grasping worms—are
3 now part of the canon of science history.
4 That Darwin considered natural selection (rather than
5 his demonstration of evolution) his most important dis-
6 covery emerges from consideration of his life and works.
7 Darwin himself treasured natural selection as his greatest
8 discovery and designated it as “my theory,” a designation he
9 never used when referring to the evolution of organisms.
10 The discovery of natural selection, Darwin’s awareness that
11 it was a greatly significant discovery because it was science’s
12 answer to Paley’s argument from design, and Darwin’s desig-
13 nation of natural selection as “my theory” can be traced in
14 Darwin’s “Red Notebook” and “Transmutation Notebooks
15 B to E,” which he started in March 1837, not long after
16 returning (on October 2, 1836) from his voyage on the
17 Beagle, and completed in late 1839.
18 The evolution of organisms was commonly accepted
19 by naturalists in the middle decades of the nineteenth cen-
20 tury. The intellectual challenge was to explain the origin of
21 distinct species of organisms, how new ones adapt to their
22 environments, that “mystery of mysteries,” as it had been
23 labeled by Darwin’s older contemporary, the prominent sci-
24 entist and philosopher Sir John Herschel (1792–1871).
25 Early in the Notebooks of 1837 to 1839, Darwin reg-
26 isters his discovery of natural selection and repeatedly refers
27 to it as “my theory.” From then until his death in 1882,
28 Darwin’s life would be dedicated to substantiating natural
29 selection and its companion postulates, mainly the pervasive-
30 ness of hereditary variation and the enormous fertility of
31 organisms, which much surpassed the capacity of available
32 resources. Natural selection became for Darwin “a theory
33 by which to work.” He relentlessly pursued observations
34 and performed experiments in order to test the theory and
35 resolve presumptive objections.
36 Browne notes Darwin’s reference to Malthus in an
37 entry dated September 28, 1838 in Notebook D. As Browne
38 paraphrases:
39
40 There is a war in nature, a struggle for exis-
41 tence. In the fight to live, the worse or weakest
42 organisms tend to die first, leaving the better
43
forms, the healthiest or better adapted. These
survivors would be the ones that generally had
offspring. If such actions were repeated over
and over again, organisms tend to become ever
more approximately suited to their conditions of
existence. He called the process “natural selec-
tion,” meaning a process in the natural world
analogous to the “artificial” selection that he saw
farmers and horticulturists applying to domestic
animals and plants. (44–45)
Darwin noted many years later in his Autobiography,
“Being well prepared to appreciate the struggle for exis-
tence . . . it at once struck me that under these circum-
stances favourable variations would tend to be preserved,
and unfavourable ones to be destroyed. Here, then, I had at
last got a theory by which to work” (cited in Browne, 45).
Darwin had “hit upon a way of explaining Paley’s perfectly
designed adaptations without any reference to a creator” (45).
Browne’s third chapter tells about the letter received
in June 1858 from Alfred Russel Wallace, which urgently
moved Darwin to prepare Origin, which was published on
November 24, 1859. He had finished correcting the proofs
on the previous October 1. The reception of Origin was
mixed, hailed by many as a major scientific achievement, in
spite of its casual autobiographical narrative style, which he
had developed in his Journal of Researches, 1833–1836 (now
known as The Voyage of the Beagle). Not surprisingly, Origin
was castigated by many, particularly on religious grounds, as
an atheistic tract that threatened the Church’s role in guard-
ing the nation’s morals and social stability. Benjamin Disraeli,
the future prime minister, asked in 1864, “Is man an ape or
an angel? He went on to assure his audience that he was on
the side of the angels” (99). The humorous magazine Punch
printed cartoons and satires depicting humanized gorillas.
One famous illustration published in May 1861 depicted
an ape asking “Am I a Man and a Brother?”
Browne’s final chapter 5, “Legacy,” is an insightful if
brief narrative of events following Darwin’s death in 1882
and his burial at Westminster Abby, in London. Browne
describes the National Engineering laboratory established in
University College London with a bequest from Darwin’s

234 evolutionary theory past and present

SP_TER2_34_230-239.indd 234 2/1/11 12:06 PM

 cousin Francis Galton “to investigate deteriorating family Deborah Heiligman’s Charles and Emma: The Darwins’ Leap 1
lines” (124). In 1910 the Eugenics Record Office at Cold of Faith is a remarkably profound and moving exploration 2
Spring Harbor was founded “and efforts were made to of their life together. Darwin admired Emma’s intellect and 3
trace traits such as insanity, feeble-mindedness and crimi- integrity. “He rarely sent anything out without Emma read- 4
nality back through the generations. . . . Eugenic doctrines ing it first” (122). In 1844, he trusted his scientific legacy 5
around 1900 were invariably coupled with other ideological to her and only to her. 6
extensions of Darwinism” (127). Of more lasting conse- In the spring of 1842, Darwin wrote the first encom- 7
quence were the rediscovery of Mendel’s laws of inheritance passing account of his theory. “In June 1842 I first allowed 8
and the eventual synthesis of Mendelian genetics and natu- myself the satisfaction of writing a very brief abstract of my 9
ral selection into the Modern Theory of Evolution, which theory in pencil in 35 pages; and this was enlarged during 10
emerged during the second quarter of the twentieth century. the summer of 1844 into one of 230 pages.”4 These two 11
There is much that is instructive in this delightful documents have come to be known as “The Sketch of 12
and well-written book. There are also a few mishaps, like 1842” and “The Essay of 1844.” In a printed edition from 13
Browne’s astonishing assertion that Darwin was born in Cambridge University Press, The Sketch takes up 48 pages 14
April 1809, rather than February 12, 1809 (President Abra- and The Essay 164 pages.5 15
ham Lincoln was born on the same date), and the rather Heiligman says of The Sketch: “He called it ‘descent 16
inconsequential repeated references to the eminent geneti- with modification’ and he used the term ‘natural selection’ 17
cist-evolutionist Theodosius Dobzhansky as “Theodore” and for the mechanism of change. . . . He did not shy away 18
to the great theoretician Sewall Wright as “Sewell.” from problems; he listed them” (111). It was only in Janu- 19
Darwin’s remarkable scientific achievements were ary 1844 that Darwin wrote to Joseph Hooker, his botanist 20
associated with a distinctive and fairly well-known lifestyle. friend, that he was working on a theory about the origin of 21
He never had an academic position or the like. He inherited species. “By early July 1844, he had expanded and rewritten 22
sufficient wealth to support himself and his large family in a the rough pencil draft. He felt it was good enough to be 23
proper upper-middle-class way of life, but he also was cau- copied out by someone with a neater hand, so he gave it 24
tiously prudent and fairly successful in the management of to the schoolmaster at Down” (121). 25
his finances. He was chronically ill most of his life. Although Darwin was now confidant of the scientific signifi- 26
he worked only a few hours each day, he was enormously cance of his explanation of the natural design of organisms 27
productive. Remarkable also was his love, tenderness, and and of the origin of species. Yet, much more evidence was 28
intimacy for his wife Emma, maintained throughout their needed to make his arguments convincing. But what if he 29
forty-three years of married life, in spite of the tensions died before he felt ready to publish it? “He turned . . . to 30
from drastically different held beliefs: Charles had become the one person he had the most faith in, the person he could 31
a de facto atheist early in his life; Emma remained very trust above all others to carry out his wishes. . . . He wrote, 32
religious to the end and concerned that Charles’ disbelief ‘My. Dear. Emma. I have just finished my sketch of my 33
might keep them separate in the afterlife. They were mar- species theory. . . . It will be a considerable step in science. 34
ried on Tuesday, January 29, 1938. Emma was thirty. Charles I therefore write this, in case of my sudden death, as my 35
was two weeks short of becoming thirty. From the very most solemn & last request. . . . that you will devote 400£ 36
beginning of their life together, Emma was the first to to its publication’ . . . Emma not only agreed, . . . she also 37
know of his revolutionary ideas, and for years she was his helped him make it better” (122–23). 38
only confidant. After relating Darwin’s discovery of natural Heiligman’s chapter titles hint at the intimacy, shared 39
selection, Browne writes, “For the moment, Darwin kept his joys, and sufferings of Charles and Emma’s joint life: “A 40
theory secret. He realized the need to be cautious. . . . Only Fretful Child” and “A Dear and Good Child” (about the 41
his wife Emma was aware of his general notions” (45–46). joyful life and early death of their beloved daughter Annie), 42
43

francisco j. ayala 235

SP_TER2_34_230-239.indd 235 2/1/11 12:06 PM

 1 “Terrible Suffering,” “Dependent on Each Other in So
2 Complex a Manner,” “Warm to the End,” “Happy Is the
3 Man.” “In 1838, when Charles had decided to ask Emma to
4 marry him, he had made a leap of faith. When she agreed,
5 they made that leap together. ‘Marry-Marry-Marry.’ . . . It
6 had been demonstrated; it had been proved” (236).
7 material . . . Darwin’s notes, cryptic marginalia [. . . and
8 Two dominant claims of Darwin’s Sacred Cause: How a Hatred
9 of Slavery Shaped Darwin’s Views on Human Evolution may
10 come as a surprise to many readers. In the introduction to
11 this authoritative and thoroughly researched book, Adrian
12 Desmond and James Moore comment on what they think
13 is a caricature of Darwin’s personal characteristics and sci-
14 entific achievements. “Not only evolutionists and secularists,
15 but many creationists and fundamentalists see Darwin’s claim
16 to fame—or infamy—in his single-minded pursuit of sci-
17 ence. Doggedly, some say obstinately, he devoted his life to
18 evolution. A zeal for scientific knowledge consumed him,
19 keeping him on target to overthrow God and bestialized
20 humanity. Brilliantly, or wickedly, Darwin globalized himself.
21 By following science and renouncing religion, he launched
22 the modern secular world. This isn’t just simplistic; most of
23 it is plain wrong” (xvi).
24 Darwin wrote two books dedicated to human evolu-
25 tion: The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex; and
26 The Expression of the Emotions in Man and Animals. Though
27 he delayed commenting on human evolution, Desmond and
28 Moore claim that his thinking on this topic was at the very
29 source of his thinking on evolution in general. “Human
30 evolution wasn’t his last piece in the evolution jigsaw; it was
31 the first. From the very outset Darwin concerned himself
32 with the unity of humankind. This notion of ‘brotherhood’
33 rounded his evolutionary enterprise. It was there in his first
34 musings on evolution in 1837” (xvi).
35 Desmond and Moore’s second claim, and indeed the
36 dominant theme of their book, concerns the grounds for
37 the previous claim, namely, Darwin’s early commitment to
38 the antislavery movement that climaxed at the height of
39 Britain’s radical political period in the late 1830s. This is “the
40 moral of our story,” they write. “Rather than seeing ‘the
41 facts’ force evolution on Darwin, . . . we find a moral pas-
42 sion firing his evolutionary work. . . . The ensuing picture
43
236 evolutionary theory past and present
SP_TER2_34_230-239.indd 236
is . . . dramatically different from previous ones, revealing
a man more sympathetic than creationists find acceptable,
more morally committed than scientists would allow” (xviii).
Desmond and Moore have uncovered Darwin’s anti-
slavery determination by exploiting “a wealth of unpub-
lished family letters and a massive amount of manuscript
even ships’ logs and lists of books read by Darwin]” (xix–
xx). Erasmus Darwin, Charles’ grandfather, was a commit-
ted abolitionist and financial supporter of the antislavery
movement, and so was Darwin’s other grandfather, the
master potter Josiah Wedgwood. Indeed, all Darwins and
Wedgwoods were determined abolitionists. This was “the
air Darwin breathed” (135). Emma Wedgwood, Darwin’s
wife to be “was as staunch on these matters” (135) as other
family members.
Britain’s antislavery movement’s patron saint during
the early decades of the 1800s was William Wilberforce,
politician, evangelist, and philanthropist. A supporter of the
movement was his son, Samuel Wilberforce, the “Soapy
Sam,” bishop of Oxford (and later of Winchester), known
to evolutionists as the contentious critic of evolution con-
fronting Thomas Henry Huxley at the famous, or infamous,
Oxford meeting of the British Association for the Advance-
ment of Science in June 1860. Bishop Wilberforce took
issue with Darwin’s description of slave ants in Origin. Dar-
win had “carelessly slipped into slave-owning terminology
in talking of ‘black’ ‘household slaves’ toiling for the British
Formica slave ants” (321). Darwin’s language had “allowed
Wilberforce to practically accuse him of believing that the
tendency of the lighter-coloured races of mankind to pros-
ecute the Negro slave-trade” was an evolutionary remain of
ant slavery. “Darwin had let himself in for it by not drawing
out the distinction in his book” (321).
As Desmond and Moore see it in the lyrical final
paragraphs of Darwin’s Sacred Cause, “Darwin’s journey
to the Descent of Man ended on the anti-slavery terrain
where it began. . . . Darwin’s ‘common descent’ image of
evolution . . . was inimical to the pluralist pro-slavery mes-
sage. . . . This was Darwin’s dream too. ‘Finally,’ he said in
the Descent of Man, ‘when the principles of evolution are
generally accepted . . . the dispute between the monog-
2/1/11 12:06 PM
 enists and the polygenists will die a silent and unobserved as a machine’ metaphor, because he is showing how organ- 1
death’” (376). isms come into being, as a result of the workings of blind, 2
unguided law” (57). 3
Michael Ruse is a distinguished philosopher—and histo- A second version of the metaphor sees natural selection 4
rian—of biology. He is also a prolific author of numerous as a “mechanism” that accounts for evolution. Darwin repeat- 5
articles and books, a journal-founding editor (Biology and edly uses the metaphor of natural selection with language 6
Philosophy), and editor of several collections of articles and that, he admits, is rather anthropomorphic. But Darwin “never 7
encyclopedias. Ruse’s intellectual scope is so broad that it referred to selection . . . as a mechanism” (58), although he 8
warrants asserting without exaggeration that no topic related uses the machine metaphor to explain the working of organ- 9
to evolution has escaped his pen, from homosexuality and isms, whether orchids or barnacles. The distinction between 10
sociobiology to all sorts of historical and philosophical issues the metaphors of machine (nature) and mechanism (natural 11
concerning evolution, through current topics, such as clon- selection) would disappear, as Ruse has it, among his contem- 12
ing, genetically modified organisms, and stem cell research. poraries, the likes of Herbert Spencer and Thomas Huxley, as 13
Ruse’s Monad to Man: The Concept of Progress in Evolutionary well as later evolutionists such as Sewall Wright, Julian Hux- 14
Biology is a masterpiece of philosophical lucidity and his- ley, and others. Thus, for example, Theodosius Dobzhansky 15
torical originality and insight. Defining Darwin: Essays on the in his Genetics and the Origin of Species “tells the reader that 16
History and Philosophy of Evolutionary Biology is a collection of ‘mechanisms that counter-act the mutation pressure are known 17
essays on Kant and evolution; Darwin and natural selection; to exist. Selection is one of them.’”6 18
evo-devo as a new evolutionary paradigm; Herbert Spencer’s Was Alfred Russel Wallace, who independently of 19
impact on modern evolution theorists; evolutionary ethics; Darwin in 1858 discovered natural selection, ultimately a 20
Darwinism versus religion; evolution in modern imaginative rebel against science? “Within ten years he was arguing 21
literature; and much more. Characteristically, the essays are that selection could not possibly account for the evolu- 22
always lucid, written in an endearing informal style, almost tion of humankind and that only spirit forces could have 23
familiar, and eminently readable. done the job” (73). Ruse sees Wallace as a “crank,” not as 24
Ruse introduces the topic of “Darwinism and Mecha- a rebel. “One can imagine someone with many ideas that 25
nism”: “In previous publications. . . . I have focused on the one would think of as crankish but not necessarily . . . as a 26
nature and role of metaphor in science. . . . I have agreed rebel” (93). Wallace denied that natural causes could explain 27
that metaphor is widely used and indispensable” (52). He human origins, because he came to accept spiritualism, even 28
explains that “Science is objective. . . . Yet science is in some in its coarsest versions, “he thought that the table lifting, 29
way subjective, because we also structure and interpret it and the knocks and shrieks, and the rest of the rather 30
through our metaphors” (52). Ruse wants to explore the weird . . . phenomena could be explained only by invoking 31
role that “one of the most important and powerful meta- the supernatural” (85). I rather see Wallace’s inconsistencies 32
phors in the history of science, the metaphor of ‘nature is as a consequence of his limited understanding of natural 33
a machine’ . . . played in the thinking of Charles Darwin selection, which he sees primarily not as a process that 34
and subsequent evolutionists” (52). Two versions of this accounts for the adaptations of organisms, but as a process 35
metaphor have been used in scientific discourse. A general that promotes evolution, which was for Wallace indefinitely 36
version of the metaphor sees “the world as governed by progressive: “a tendency in nature to the continued pro- 37
unbroken law, regarding it as something like a clock, forever gression . . . further and further from the original type—a 38
going in motions without end” (53). Newton’s mechanics progression to which there appears no reason to assign any 39
is the prime example. Darwin established the fact of evo- definite limits.”7 Wallace thought that the human soul tran- 40
lution and a primary causal mechanism, natural selection. scends nature and, thus, humans could not be explained as 41
Thereby, Darwin struck “a key blow for the general ‘nature an outcome of natural selection. 42
43

francisco j. ayala 237

SP_TER2_34_230-239.indd 237 2/1/11 12:06 PM

 1 Ruse, a self-proclaimed atheist (or agnostic as he
2 would prefer to have it), has two essays on evolution and
3 religion, which will surely raise feathers on both sides of the
4 argument, those who see evolution and religion as compat-
5 ible, and those who see them as incompatible. The later ones
6 include the two opposite camps that make unlikely bedfel-
7 lows in this respect: the creationists and intelligent design-
8 ers who deny evolution on one side, and the Darwinian
9 atheists, who proclaim that evolution proves religion false
10 on the other side. “The fact that you can give a naturalistic
11 explanation of religion does not at once imply that religion
12 is false” (211). Rather, “If evolutionism is true, and it is,
13 and if natural selection is the main mechanism, then the
14 Darwinian approach to religion cannot be without merit”
15 (212). Ruse has explored the issues at length in his Can a
16 Darwinian Be a Christian? The Relationship between Science and
17 Religion. According to Ruse, some eminent evolutionists see
18 “evolution as the basis for a kind of secular religion. . . . For
19 me, having given up the religion of my childhood, I am
20 not very keen on embracing another religion for my old
21 age” (Defining Darwin, 238).
22
23 Born in 1850, Charles Doolittle Walcott grew up in Uti-
24 ca, New York. He never finished high school, but rose to
25 become director of the U.S. Geological Survey, secretary
26 of the Smithsonian Institution, a founder of the Carnegie
27 Institution of Washington, and president of the National
28 Academy of Sciences. He came to know and advise seven
29 U.S. presidents, helped to persuade President McKinley to
30 set aside national forest reserves, and conspired with Presi-
31 dent Teddy Roosevelt to designate lands for national monu-
32 ments. The riveting story of this remarkable man is narrated
33 with insight and elegance by Sean B. Carroll in Remarkable
34 Creatures: Epic Adventures in the Search for the Origins of Species.
35 Sean Carroll is well known to evolutionists for his
36 extraordinary scientific discoveries as a leader of a new
37 subdiscipline that has come to be known as evo-devo, for
38 “evolution and development.” His scientific achievements
39 have earned him election to the U.S. National Academy
40 of Sciences and many other accolades. He is also a gifted
41 storyteller and serious student of scientific history, author
42
43
238 evolutionary theory past and present
SP_TER2_34_230-239.indd 238
of prize-winning books, such as The Making of the Fittest:
DNA and the Ultimate Forensic Record of Evolution and Endless
Forms Most Beautiful: The New Science of Evo Devo, engaging
narratives that can be read with pleasure by scientists and
by the general public.
In his teens Walcott became an avid fossil collector.
By age seventeen, he had amassed a large collection of tri-
lobites from limestone quarries around Trenton Falls, near
the dairy farm where he worked as a farmhand. In his
mid-twenties, Walcott was offered an assistant’s job at the
New York State Museum at Albany. From there, he went
to the USGS as a geological assistant. At age twenty-nine,
he led a small geological expedition from the Pink Cliffs
in southern Utah to the Grand Canyon of the Colorado
River, collecting fossils “from every major geological period
as he descended—the Cretaceous, Jurassic, Triassic, Perm-
ian, Devonian, and, at the Colorado River, a few trilobites
that marked the Cambrian” (106). Several years later, he
searched the underlying sedimentary rocks where he found
a few fossils, the first clear evidence of Precambrian life.
His big bang was the discovery, in the Burgess Shale of
the Canadian Rockies, of an astonishing diversity of fossils,
much more than the trilobites and brachiopods of other
Cambrian deposits. “Its exquisite quality also preserved soft-
bodied animals . . . which represented many of the other
major divisions of the animal kingdom (phyla), including
annelid worms, priapulids, lobopodians, and even a chor-
date” (116–17).
Carroll’s engaging narrative tells the story of Roy
Chapman Andrews’ expeditions to the Gobi Desert in Cen-
tral Asia (chapter 7); the discovery by the Dutch physician
Eugène Dubois of Java man, the first discovered human
ancestor, after separation of the human and chimpanzee
lineages (chapter 5); and the amazing discovery, by Nobel
laureate physicist Luis Alvarez and his geologist son, of the
asteroid impact on the Yucatan Peninsula at the Cretaceous-
Triassic boundary, which caused the worldwide extinction
of the dinosaurs (chapter 8). But there is much more in
Remarkable Creatures. “This book tells the stories of some of
the most dramatic adventures and important discoveries in
two centuries of natural history . . . and how they inspired
2/1/11 12:06 PM
 and have expanded one of the greatest ideas of modern Darwin, Francis, ed. The Foundations of the ‘Origin of Species’: Two 1
science” (xiii). Amen. Essays Written in 1842 and 1844. Cambridge: Cambridge Uni- 2
versity Press, 1909. 3
BIBLIOGRAPHY Dobzhansky, Theodosius. Genetics and the Origin of Species. New 4
York: Columbia University Press, 1937.
5
Freud, Sigmund A. A General Introduction to Psycho-Analysis. 1920.
Barlow, Nora, ed. The Autobiography of Charles Darwin (1809–1882). 6
In Great Books of the Western World, vol. 54, edited by
London: Collins, 1958. 7
J. M. Adler. Chicago: Encyclopedia Britannica, 1993.
Browne, Janet. Charles Darwin, The Power of Place. New York: Knopf, 8
Paley, William. Natural Theology. London: R. Fauldner, 1802.
2002. 9
Ruse, Michael. Can a Darwinian Be a Christian? The Relationship
———. Charles Darwin, Voyaging. New York: Knopf, 1995.
between Science and Religion. Cambridge: Cambridge University 10
Carroll, Sean B. Endless Forms Most Beautiful: The New Science of
Evo Devo. New York: W.W. Norton, 2005.
Press, 2001. 11
———. Monad to Man: The Concept of Progress in Evolutionary Biol- 12
———. The Making of the Fittest: DNA and the Ultimate Forensic
ogy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1996. 13
Record of Evolution. New York: W.W. Norton, 2006.
Wallace, Alfred Russel. “On the Tendency of Varieties to Depart 14
Darwin, Charles Robert. The Descent of Man, and Selection in Rela-
Indefinitely from the Original Type.” Journal of the Proceedings 15
tion to Sex, 2 volumes. London: Murray, 1871.
of the Linnean Society: Zoology 3 (1858): 53–62.
———. The Expression of Emotions in Man and Animals. London: 16
Murray, 1872. 17
———. Journal of Researches [now known as The Voyage of the NOTES 18
Beagle]. London: Henry Colburn, 1839. 19
———. The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin Including an Autobio- 20
graphical Chapter, Volume 1, edited by F. Darwin. New York: 1. Freud, General Introduction, 562.
21
D. Appleton and Company, 1893. 2. Paley, Natural Theology, 15–16.
———. On the Origin of Species: A Facsimile of the First Edition, 3. Darwin, Origin of Species, 51. 22
with an Introduction by Ernst Mayr. New York: Athenaeum, 4. Darwin, Life and Letters, 84. 23
1859, 1967. 5. Darwin, Foundations. 24
———. The Variation of Animals and Plants under Domestication. 6. Dobzhansky, Genetics, 66. 25
London: Murray, 1868. 7. Wallace, “Tendency of Varieties,” 53. 26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43

francisco j. ayala 239

SP_TER2_34_230-239.indd 239 2/1/11 12:06 PM

 Contributors

Francisco J. Ayala is University Professor and Donald Bren Professor of Biological Sciences, University of
California, Irvine. Professor Ayala was awarded the 2010 Templeton Prize and the 2001 U.S. National Medal of
Science, and was named “Renaissance Man of Evolutionary Biology” by the New York Times. He is a member
of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences.

Kevin Scott Baldwin teaches biology at Monmouth College in western Illinois. He majored in biology and
history at University of California, Berkeley, and received a PhD in zoology from the University of Florida.

Simon Baron-Cohen is Professor of Developmental Psychopathology at the University of Cambridge and

Fellow at Trinity College, Cambridge. He is Director of the Autism Research Centre (ARC) in Cambridge.
He holds degrees in human sciences from New College, Oxford, a PhD in psychology from University Col-
lege London, and an MPhil in clinical psychology at the Institute of Psychiatry. He is author of Mindblindness
(MIT Press, 1995), The Essential Difference: Men, Women and the Extreme Male Brain (Penguin UK/Basic Books,
2003), Prenatal Testosterone in Mind (MIT Press, 2005), in addition to other scholarly books and publications;
his Zero Degrees of Empathy is forthcoming.

David F. Bjorklund is Professor of Psychology at Florida Atlantic University and the current editor of the
Journal of Experimental Child Psychology. His books include The Origins of Human Nature: Evolutionary Devel-
opmental Psychology, Why Youth Is Not Wasted on the Young: Immaturity in Human Development, and Children’s
Thinking: Cognitive Development and Individual Differences.

Brian Boyd is University Distinguished Professor in English at the University of Auckland, New Zealand.
The world’s leading scholar on Vladimir Nabokov, he has had work published in fifteen languages. He has
published many essays on literature and evolution and is the author of On the Origin of Stories: Evolution,
Cognition, and Fiction. He is a coeditor of Evolution, Literature, and Film: A Reader.

Baba Brinkman is a rap artist, actor, and popularizer of science and literature. He holds a master’s in Medi-
eval and Renaissance Literature from the University of Victoria, and since 2004 has made a living entirely
as a touring hip-hop artist, writing and performing a series of award-winning comedy rap theater shows at
the Edinburgh Fringe Festival and around the world, including The Rap Canterbury Tales, The Rap Guide to
Evolution, and most recently The Rap Guide to Human Nature.

Anne Campbell is Professor of Psychology at Durham University, England. Her research examines sex dif-
ferences in aggression, fear, and impulsivity from an evolutionary perspective. She is the author of A Mind of
Her Own: The Evolutionary Psychology of Women.

240 contributors

SP_TER2_35_LOC_240-244.indd 240 2/1/11 12:06 PM

 Joseph Carroll is Curators’ Professor of English at the
University of Missouri–St. Louis. His books include Evolu-
tion and Literary Theory, Literary Darwinism: Evolution, Human
Nature, and Literature, and Reading Human Nature: Literary
Darwinism in Theory and Practice. He has produced an edition
of On the Origin of Species. He is a coeditor of Evolution,
Literature, and Film: A Reader.
Mathias Clasen is in the doctoral program in English at
the University of Aarhus, Denmark, and is there affiliated
with Interdisciplinary Evolutionary Studies. He has pub-
lished several articles on horror fiction and is the author
of Homo Timidus.
Brett Cooke is Professor of Russian at Texas A&M Univer-
sity. He is the author of Human Nature in Utopia: Zamyatin’s
“We” and coeditor (with Jan Baptist Bedaux) of Sociobiol-
ogy and the Arts and (with Frederick Turner) of Biopoetics:
Evolutionary Explorations in the Arts.
Olga M. Cooke is Associate Professor of Russian at Texas
A&M University. She is the author of essays on Andrey Bely,
Russian symbolism, and gulag literature, and the translator
of After Plattling. She is also the editor of Gulag Studies. She
is completing a biography of Andrey Bely called The Most
Interesting Man in Russia: Andrey Bely’s Life in Letters.
Ellen Dissanayake is Affiliate Professor in the School of
Music at the University of Washington, Seattle. Her inter-
disciplinary work is concerned with the arts as evolved
behaviors, inherent in human nature. In addition to many
articles and book chapters, she is the author of What Is Art
For?, Homo Aestheticus, and Art and Intimacy. Homo Aestheticus
has been translated into Chinese and Korean.
Harold Fromm is Visiting Scholar in English at the Uni-
versity of Arizona. His books include Academic Capitalism
and Literary Value and The Nature of Being Human: From Envi-
ronmentalism to Consciousness. He coedited The Ecocriticism
Reader and is a regular contributor to The Hudson Review.
SP_TER2_35_LOC_240-244.indd 241
Jonathan Gottschall is Adjunct Professor in the English
Department at Washington & Jefferson College. He is the
author of The Rape of Troy: Evolution, Violence, and the World
of Homer (2008) and Literature, Science, and a New Humanities
(2008). He is coeditor of The Literary Animal: Evolution and
the Nature of Narrative (2005) and also of Evolution, Literature,
and Film: A Reader.
Robin Headlam Wells is Professor Emeritus at Roehamp-
ton University London. His most recent book is Shakespeare’s
Politics (2009). He is currently writing A Short History of
Human Nature.
Andrew C. Higgins is Associate Professor of English at
State University of New York, New Paltz. He has writ-
ten on Walt Whitman, Henry Wadsworth Longfellow, Sarah
Piatt, and Civil War memoirs. His poetry has appeared in
several literary reviews, including The New York Quarterly
and Footwork: The Paterson Literary Review.
Tim Horvath teaches creative writing at Chester College
of New England and Boston’s Grub Street Writers. His
work has appeared in Conjunctions, Fiction, Puerto del Sol,
Alimentum: The Literature of Food, SleepingFish, and elsewhere.
He is the author of the novella Circulation.
John A. Johnson, Professor of Psychology at the Pennsyl-
vania State University, joined the faculty in 1981, immedi-
ately after earning his PhD in psychology from the Johns
Hopkins University. He spent the 1990–1991 year as Visiting
Professor and Alexander von Humboldt-Stiftung Research
Fellow at the University of Bielefeld, Germany. He has pub-
lished widely on the personality and evolutionary psychol-
ogy of moral and educational development, career choice,
and work performance.
Peter C. Kjærgaard is Professor of Evolutionary Studies
and Director of Interdisciplinary Evolutionary Studies at
Aarhus University, and an Affiliate of the Leverhulme Cen-
tre for Human Evolutionary Studies and St. John’s College
at the University of Cambridge. He is currently Visiting
contributors 241
2/1/11 12:06 PM
 Professor at the Department of Human Evolutionary Biol-
ogy, Harvard University.
Aaron Kozbelt is Associate Professor of Psychology at
Brooklyn College and the Graduate Center of the City
University of New York. Most of his research focuses on
aesthetics, creativity, and cognition in the arts (particularly
visual art and classical music), and he publishes widely on
these topics. He is also a practicing visual artist.
Michael LaTorra is Assistant Professor of English at New
Mexico State University. His interests include the litera-
ture of science, technologies of human enhancement, and
Zen Buddhism. He has practiced Zen since 1990 and was
ordained a Soto Zen priest in 2004. He is the author of
a book on the Tao teh Ching titled A Warrior Blends with
Life: A Modern Tao.
Penousal Machado teaches Artificial Intelligence and
Computational Art at the University of Coimbra, Portu-
gal. He is the author of more than fifty refereed journal
and conference papers in these areas and has coedited the
book The Art of Artificial Evolution. He is member of the
editorial board of the Journal of Mathematics and the Arts,
International Journal on Artificial Intelligence Tools, and Journal
of Artificial Evolution and Applications. He is also the recipi-
ent of several scientific awards, including the prestigious
award for Excellence and Merit in Artificial Intelligence
(PremeIA) granted by the Portuguese Association for Arti-
ficial Intelligence.
Ekkehart Malotki is Professor Emeritus of Modern Lan-
guages at Northern Arizona University. As an ethnolinguist,
his work has focused on the preservation of Hopi language
and culture. In addition to multiple bilingual publications on
Hopi oral literature, he was the principal data contributor
to the Hopi-English Dictionary. In addition, he has published
three award-winning books of photographs and interpreta-
tions of petroglyphs and pictographs. His most recent pub-
lication, The Rock Art of Arizona: Art for Life’s Sake, shows
the influence of Ellen Dissanayake’s pathbreaking views on
242 contributors
SP_TER2_35_LOC_240-244.indd 242
the arts. Together with her and archaeologist Henry Wallace,
he is currently involved in collaborative research on the
Pleistocene-Holocene Transition rock art of the American
West (see http://oak.ucc.nau.edu/malotki).
Anesa Miller is a native of Wichita, Kansas, and holds a
PhD in Russian Language and Literature from the Uni-
versity of Kansas at Lawrence. She has published numerous
translations on Russian cultural topics, as well as her own
short stories, poems, and essays. Currently enrolled in the
MFA-Creative Writing program at the University of Idaho,
she specializes in fiction.
Anna Neill is Associate Professor of English at the Univer-
sity of Kansas. She is the author of British Discovery Literature
and the Rise of Global Commerce and a recently completed
monograph, “Primitive Minds: Evolution and the Physiol-
ogy of Belief in Victorian Novels.”
Barbara Oakley is Associate Professor of Engineering at
Oakland University in Michigan. Her work focuses on the
complex relationship between social behavior and neuro-
science. Among her varied experiences, she has worked as
a Russian translator on Soviet trawlers in the Bering Sea;
served as a radio operator at the South Pole station in
Antarctica; and she has gone from private to regular Army
Captain in the U.S. military. Oakley is a Fellow of the
American Institute of Medical and Biological Engineering.
Her books include Evil Genes (2007) and the forthcoming
Cold-Blooded Kindness (2011). She is also the editor of the
forthcoming collection Pathological Kindness (2011).
Ruth Padel is an award-winning British poet and writ-
er. Her books include Darwin: A Life in Poems (a verse
biography of her great-great-grandfather Charles Darwin),
Tigers in Red Weather (about tiger conservation), and Where
the Serpent Lives, a novel highlighting endangered species
and tropical zoology. “Only Emily Brontë has embraced
Padel’s radical and sympathetic inclusiveness of creaturely
life” (Guardian). She is Fellow of the Royal Society of Lit-
erature and Zoological Society of London and currently
2/1/11 12:06 PM
 finishing a prose-cum-poetry book about animal migration
and human immigration (see www.ruthpadel.com).
Jaak Panksepp is Bailey Endowed Professor of Animal
Well-Being Science at the College of Veterinary Medi-
cine, Washington State University, Head of Affective Neu-
roscience at the Falk Center for Molecular Therapeutics
at Northwestern University, and Distinguished Research
Professor of Psychobiology, emeritus, at Bowling Green
State University. He is the founder of the field of Affective
Neuroscience. Along with many students and colleagues, he
has published over four hundred scientific articles, chap-
ters, and reviews devoted to the scientific elucidation of
the primary-process brain mechanisms of motivations and
emotions as well as the fundamental nature of conscious-
ness and self-representation in the mammalian brain. He is
the author of Affective Neuroscience: The Foundation of Human
and Animal Emotions (1998), editor of Textbook of Biological
Psychiatry (2004), and seven other books. His Archaeology
of Mind: Neuroevolutionary Foundations of Human Emotions is
forthcoming in 2011.
John Scott Price is retired from psychiatric practice in
the UK National Health Service. Previously he worked for
the Medical Research Council, in the Psychiatric Genetics
Research Unit and in the Clinical Research Centre. For many
years he was European Editor of the ASCAP (Across Species
Comparisons and Psychopathology) Newsletter. He is coauthor
with Anthony Stevens of Evolutionary Psychiatry (Routledge
1996, 2000). He is interested in conflict and reconciliation,
especially as depicted in literature, such as in the Indian epic
story The Mahabharata (see www.johnprice.me.uk).
Bret A. Rappaport is a partner with the Chicago law firm
of Hardt Stern & Kayne. He teaches legal writing and has
published several articles on law, rhetoric, and evolutionary
psychology.
Marnia Robinson, JD (Yale), is the author of Cupid’s
Poisoned Arrow: From Habit to Harmony in Sexual Relation-
ships. She blogs on Psychology Today and elsewhere. She
SP_TER2_35_LOC_240-244.indd 243
writes with the collaboration of her husband Gary Wilson,
a neuroscience enthusiast who teaches anatomy and physiol-
ogy. Together they created and maintain the website www.
yourbrainonporn.com.
Juan Romero is Associate Professor at University of Coruña,
Spain. He is founder of the Working Group in Music and
Art of EvoNet—the European Network of Excellence in
Evolutionary Computing—and of the European Workshop
on Evolutionary Art and Music (evoMUSART). He is the
author of more than thirty refereed journal and conference
papers in the areas of evolutionary computation and artificial
intelligence, and editor of a special issue of the MIT Press
journal Leonardo and of the book The Art of Artificial Evolution.
Gad Saad is Professor of Marketing and the holder of
the Concordia University Research Chair in Evolutionary
Behavioral Sciences and Darwinian Consumption. He is the
author of The Evolutionary Bases of Consumption (2007); The
Consuming Instinct: What Juicy Burgers, Ferraris, Pornography, and
Gift Giving Reveal About Human Nature (2011), and editor
of Evolutionary Psychology in the Business Sciences (2011). His
Psychology Today blog titled Homo Consumericus has garnered
over one million readers since November 2008. He has
published about fifty-five scientific papers, many of which
lie at the intersection of evolutionary psychology and the
behavioral sciences.
Judith P. Saunders is Professor of English at Marist Col-
lege in New York State. Her current research is concentrated
in two areas: contemporary poetry and literary Darwinism.
She is the author of a book on the British poet Charles
Tomlinson and Reading Edith Wharton through a Darwin-
ian Lens (2009). She has published articles on Gwendolyn
Brooks, Elizabeth Bishop, Howard Moss, May Swenson, and
other poets. Her studies of evolutionary themes in literature
include articles on Benjamin Franklin, Sherwood Anderson,
Zora Neale Hurston, and others.
Jeff Turpin received his PhD in English from the Univer-
sity of Texas at San Antonio, with concentrations in psy-
contributors 243
2/1/11 12:06 PM
 chology and literature, modernism and postmodernism, and
Chicana/o literature. His next essay, “American Naturalism
and Modern Evolutionary Psychology,” will appear in the
2011 Oxford Handbook of American Literary Naturalism. He
currently teaches at University of Texas, San Antonio while
running a private archeological consulting firm.
Blakey Vermeule is Associate Professor of English at Stan-
ford University. She is the author of The Party of Humanity:
Writing Moral Psychology in Eighteenth-Century Britain and
Why Do We Care about Literary Characters?
244 contributors
SP_TER2_35_LOC_240-244.indd 244
Edward O. Wilson is University Research Professor, Emer-
itus, at Harvard University. His twenty-five books include
On Human Nature (1978) and (with Bert Hölldobler) The
Ants (1990), both of which won the Pulitzer Prize for Gen-
eral Nonfiction; Consilience: The Unity of Knowledge (1998);
The Future of Life (2002); and, most recently, (with Bert
Hölldobler) The Superorganism (2008).
2/1/11 12:06 PM