Sexual Darwinism
Walking trough the animal sex exhibit in MoSex, I noticed one wall close to the entrance dedicated to Charles Darwin. This was, aside from the artist’s statement, the only purely conceptual panel in the exhibit. Darwin, who lived during the Victorian era, is widely credited as the founder of the theory of evolution through natural selection. But how do ideas of natural selection set our framework for thinking about sex in the animal kingdom?
Found from a Google image search “Darwin parody”
The idea that human behavior is evolutionarily determined is one of the greatest scientific myths of our time. It is supported only by weak evidence. Reams of it to be sure, due to its fashion, but all of it at best showing correlation not causation, and drawing unfounded conclusions based on inconclusive evidence. Its strongest backing is purely cultural. The idea that behavior can be explained by natural selection gives vast opportunities for control over people’s lives.
For example, the idea that our sexual behavior is evolutionarily determined leads away from, and even actively discourages, any personal reflection or analysis of our sexual habits and choices. Instead of addressing the question, “Why the hell did I sleep with that woman?” we can settle on the reasoning that it’s understandable because of our evolutionary drive to reproduce. Instead of prompting us to ask, “Am I fulfilled living my life the way I’m living it?” a behavioral theory of evolution encourages us to relinquish responsibility for experiences that are wholly personal and unique. It is disempowering, and makes us ever more vulnerable to outside influences and controls.
People make caveats, such as “behavior is evolutionarily driven, but is influenced by environmental factors.” These slight adjustments are no better, as they still leave no room for personal choice. They still encourage resignation and judgment of others, failing to recognize unmanifested human potential. Weak arguments using scientific parlance are no excuse for denying people the freedom to choose their behavior, and to strive for change from within however they wish. A purely evolutionary (or environmental) theory of behavior, though commonly and often dogmatically accepted now, is inherently and thoroughly anti-humanistic.
The framework that MoSex chose to show the diversity of animal sexualities through, namely natural selection, can lead to some interesting thoughts (e.g. if these animals survived for so long having wild sex, we can too!). But ultimately, when we leave the museum, we spend far more time thinking about people than animals. And the anti-humanistic framework of natural selection remains more applicable than the penis of a banana slug.
The key to a successful museum is to pick an overarching purpose and stick to it. By doing that, they send a clear and honest message, and give visitors the opportunity to make sense of their message within whatever framework they choose. Whether it is to commemorate, educate, inspire, entertain, or provoke, the responsible thing to do is to make the stance clear. Positioning themselves as more of an educational institution than they actually are, I would have liked if MoSex had made it clearer throughout that the museum’s purpose is to entertain, stimulate, and provoke. If I had felt that they sent the message that MoSex’s purpose is not meant to significantly educate or prompt constructive discourse, I would have been happy to be stimulated and entertained, and when I learned some trivia I would have been grateful. As it is, however, I was disappointed by the shallow ideas presented in the museum.
Tags: Darwin, Evolution, Foucault, MoSex, Museums, Natural Selection
March 13th, 2013 at 3:59 pm
Once again, great image! But I don’t say that to take away form your post, which I also think instigates a very compelling discussion. In theory, I agree with a lot of what you’ve pointed out in regards to the flaws of evolutionary psychology. When I think critically, I can see it as quite an enticing scapegoat to excuse crappy behavior in modern society simply because it is hard copied in every human’s genes. That said, I read The Moral Animal by Robert Wright a couple years ago and it challenged a lot of these suppositions in a profound way. While I agree that we shouldn’t rely on evolutionary psychology to explain why we think, act, and feel certain ways, do you really think evolution plays no part in the make-up of the human mind? Wright questions the idea of the mind as a blank slate, and in part, I agree with that effort. Not to reduce your “Why the hell did I sleep with that woman?” example, but maybe we can consider a more pointed one. Say monogamy. One of the panels at MoSex insinuated that few to no other animal species maintain monogamous relationships throughout their lives. Our own culture, one that has strived to encourage monogamy through many different vehicles of discourse, has largely failed. Why is that? Does the looming concept of human nature that many of us like to reflexively reject have absolutely nothing to do with it? Maybe, maybe not. It’s important to remember, too, that evolutionary psychology isn’t a fixed concept. Scientists who associate with that field don’t attempt to discover a list of absolute human natures; that perception is in perfect opposition with the evolutionary aspect of their thinking. Yes, evolution is a “very gradual change,” but nonetheless, it’s inherently based on the capacity for change, and I think evolutionary psychologists realize that.
I think I’m getting lost in my thoughts so I’m going to try and wrap it up with a final one: I think that cultural influence and individual choice are extremely powerful in understanding the immediate realm of our behavior; but I don’t think it’s fair to rule out that evolution still plays a role in shaping collective behavior over time. How would you argue that our brains are the sole organs exempt from natural selection?
Did ANY of that make sense?
March 13th, 2013 at 5:14 pm
Thanks for the comment! I do think a drive for survival plays a part in how humans are today, especially in shaping collective behavior over time. And if that’s where the theory ended, I would have no issue with it at all. I see a problem, however, when theories about collective behavior are used to make decisions and policies about individuals.
I also have an issue with the way evolutionary psychology can be conducted. A behavioral trend is noticed (searching for “youth” porn) and a theory is woven about how it may aid in survival. At the same time countless trends which might be harder to explain in terms of survival (searching for “grandma” porn) are ignored until, presumably a theory is devised that explains this trend in terms of survival as well. This unending effort to catalog all behavior in terms of survival may be interesting, but in my opinion yields no understanding. It does not provide any more support for the underlying theory and serves mainly as a distraction from what makes us uniquely human: all of the things we do that make no sense for survival at all. Do we write blog posts for survival? Make music or art for survival? Animals and humans have survived this far, so we no doubt have scores of survival mechanisms, both physical and psychological. Although a drive for survival surely influences our actions, I guess my views stem largely from the opinion that it yields far more insight to look within than without. I think the field of evolutionary psychology is useful for mapping influences, but is gravely inadequate in describing the motivations and goals of human behavior.
Your example of monogamy being seemingly very hard to achieve for us as a population can definitely be seen in the light of a drive for survival and reproduction, and this may yield some insights. I just don’t think an analysis should end there. There are more questions we can ask that may provide even more insight into our actions. For example, do we even have life-long monogamy as a goal for ourselves, or just for others? And amongst people who genuinely hold it as personally important, is it that hard to attain?
March 14th, 2013 at 9:18 am
Hi Eli,
This is a thoughtful post. I read a piece this morning in the Chronicle of Higher Education that I think will interest you. Here is the link:
http://chronicle.com/article/EvolutionExistentialism/137715/?cid=at&utm_source=at&utm_medium=en
Let me know if you have trouble with it and I will send by email. It seems to me that both you and David Barash (the author of the essay) agree that polarized views from other side miss key points of complexity. My own view is that we also need to be wary of assumptions about individual freedom, especially in the age of consumer culture, as represented preeminently by MoSex. While we each have a load of personal experiences, many of them are fostered by what Foucault called apparatuses of individuation–that is, culturally induced mechanisms that channel our subjectivity along certain lines and give us the illusion of being a unique individual with freedom of choice. In our culture, that sometimes amounts to being able to “freely” choose one of 28 types of breakfast cereal at the grocery store. That said, the practice of freedom that acknowledges such a context is of utmost importance. I think that is what you have pointed out so astutely.