The Boundaries of Humanity

8/22/2019 The Boundaries of Humanity

1/204

Preferred Citation: Sheehan, James J., and Morton Sosna, editorsThe Boundaries of Humanity: Humans, Animals,Machines. Berkeley: University of California Press, c1991 1991. http:ark.cdli!.or"ark:1#$#$ft##%n!&$'

The Boundaries of Humanity

Humans, Animals, Machines

Edited byJames J. Sheehanand Morton Sosna

UNIVERSITY O !"#IORNI" $RESS

Berkeley Los Angeles Oxford

% &''& The Re(ents of the Uni)ersity of !a*ifornia

(or Bliss Carnochan and )an *att, directorse+traordinaires, and the staff and friends of

the Stanford -manities Center

Preferred Citation: Sheehan, James J., and Morton Sosna, editorsThe Boundaries of Humanity: Humans, Animals,Machines. Berkeley: University of California Press, c1991 1991. http:ark.cdli!.or"ark:1#$#$ft##%n!&$'

(or Bliss Carnochan and )an *att, directorse+traordinaires, and the staff and friends ofthe Stanford -manities Center

"!+NO,#E-MENTShe editos /o-ld like to ackno/led"e some of those /ho made possi!le the 19%0 Stanford Universityconference, -mans, 2nimals, Machines: Bo-ndaries and Pro3ections, on /hich this vol-me is

!ased. *e are partic-larly "ratef-l to Stanford4s president, 5onald 6ennedy, and its provost, James7oose, for this s-pport of the conference in connection /ith the -niversity4s centennial. *e also /ish tothank 8llis and 6atherine 2lden for their "enero-s s-pport.

Special thanks are o/ed the staff of the Stanford -manities Center and its director, Bliss Carnochan,/ho "enero-sly assisted and other/ise enco-ra"ed o-r endeavors in every /ay possi!le. *e are alsoinde!ted to James i!!ons, 5ean of Stanford4s School of 8n"ineerin", /ho committed !oth his timeandthe 8n"ineerin" School4s reso-rces to o-r efforts Michael 7yan, 5irector of ;i!rary Collections,Stanford University ;i!raries, /ho, alon" /ith his staff, not only made the li!raries4 facilities availa!le!-t arran"ed a handsome !ook e+hi!it, Beasts, Machines, and other -mans: Some )ma"es of


2/204

Mankind and John Cho/nin", Center for Comp-ter 7esearch in M-sic and 2co-stics, /ho oran"i


3/204

Bernard *illiams on the ran"e of pro!lems enco-ntered in attemptin" to define h-manity in relationeither or animals or machines. his is follo/ed !y sections on h-mans and

&

animals and on h-mans and machines. hese are separately introd-ced !y James J. Sheehan, /ho

provides historical !ack"ro-nd and commentary to the essays in each section /hile e+plorin"connections !et/een some of the iss-es raised !y socio!iolo"y and artificial intelli"ence. Sheehanf-rther develops these connections in a concl-din" after/ood. o"ether, Sheehan4s pieces -nderscorethe e+tent to /hich socio!iolo"y and artificial intelli"ence have reopened iss-es at the core of the*estern intellect-al tradition.

)n assem!lin" the contri!-tors, /e chose to emphasi


4/204

conte+t, the cent-ry or so piror to the scientific revol-tion of the seventeenth cent-ry, /hen h-manidentity stood firmly !et/een the divine and nat-ral orders. 5avidson4s he orror of Monsters is a-sef-l reminder that in earlier times, definitions of h-manity /ere formed more !y reference to an"elsthan to animals, let alone machines. Since science as it emer"ed from medieval traditions /as oftenindistin"-isha!le from theolo"y, the task of definin" the h-man readily mi+ed the t/o disco-rses.2mon" other thin"s, 5avidson ho/s ho/ the notion of monsters tested the lon"Astandin" !elief in

*estern c-lt-re in the a!sol-te distinction !et/een h-mans and other animal forms in /ays thatprefi"-red some contemporary de!ates a!o-t socio!iolo"y and artificial intelli"ence. is essay tracesrepeated attempt to red-ce the h-man to a sin"le a priori concept, to -ncover linka"es !et/een moraland nat-ral orders Dor disordersE, and to create alle"ories that le"itimate a "iven c-lt-re4s mostcherished !eliefs. =-r o/n c-lt-re may find o-r predecessors4 fascination /ith animal monstersam-sin"ly mis"-ided, !-t /e contin-e to take more serio-slyand are appropriately fasinated !yrepresentations of monsters, from 5r. (rankenstein4s to 7o!ocop, that com!ine h-man intention /ithmechanical capacity.

)n he 2nimal Connection, arriet 7itvo, a specialist in nineteenthcent-ry British c-lt-re, !rin"s5avidson4s disc-ssion of mar"inal !easts as pro3ections of h-man an+iety closer to the present. Bye+aminin" the ideas of animal !reeders in >ictorian 8n"land, she sho/s that m-ch of their tho-"ht

o/ed more to pervasive class, racial, and "ender attit-des than to !iolo"y. Unlike the theolo"icallyinspired interpreters of "eneration analyictorian c-lt-re:faith in the a!sol-te dichotomy !et/een h-man !ein"s and animals. (or >ictorians, this /as no smallmatter. Shocked !y 5ar/in4s theories !-t as yet innocent of (re-d4s, many sa/ the open violation of the!o-ndary !et/een h-mans and !easts as a

F s-re recipe for disaster. )n 7o!ert ;o-is Stevenson4s The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, fore+ample /hen the kindly 5r. enry Jekyll realiictorian animal !reeders /ho claimed they co-ld distin"-ish depraved from normal se+-alactivities on the part of female do"s /ere, accordin" to 7itvo, openly Dif -nselfconscio-slyEackno/led"in" this very animal connection. 7itvo also o!serves that the "reatest slippa"ethat is,the displacement of h-man moral 3-d"ments onto co/s, do"s, sleep, "oats, and catsocc-rredprecisely in those areas /here contemporary -nderstandin" of the act-al physiolo"y of reprod-ction/as /eakest.

-man slippa"e -nder the "-ise of science, especially at the frontiers of kno/led"e, is 8velyn (o+6eller4s main concern in ;an"-a"e and )deolo"y in 8vol-tionary heory: 7eadin" C-lt-ral @ormsinto @at-ral ;a/. 6eller ar"-es that the concept of competitive individ-alism on /hich so m-chevol-tionary theory depends is not dra/n from nat-re. 7ather, like the rampant anthropomorphismdescri!ed !y 7itvo, it, too, is a pro3ection of h-man social, political, and psycholo"ical val-es.(oc-sin" on ass-mptions /ithin the fields of pop-lation "enetics and mathematical ecolo"y, 6eller'-estions /hether individ-alism necessarily means competition, pointin" o-t many instances in nat-renot the least !ein" se+-al reprod-ction/here interactin" or"anisms can more properly !e said to


5/204

!e cooperatin" rather than competin". Iet, so deeply is the notion of competition em!edded in thesefields that 6eller /onders /hether s-ch lin"-istic -sa"e is symptomatic of a lar"er c-lt-ral pro!lem,ideolo"y passin" as science, /hich makes evol-tionary theory as m-ch a prescriptive as a descriptiveenterprise. (or 6eller, lan"-a"e and the /ay /e -se it, not to mention o-r reasons for -sin" it as /e do,limit o-r disc-ssion of /hat nat-re is. @ot opposed to a concept of h-man nat-re, as s-ch, 6ellero!3ects to the ideolo"ically char"ed terms on /hich s-ch a concept often rests.

he pro!lem of lin"-istic slippa"e permeates dic-ssion of !oth socio!iolo"y and artificial intelli"ence.2s a "eneral r-le, the "reater the claims made !y either of these disciplines, the "reater is the potentialfor claims made !y either of these disciplines, the "reater is the potential for slippa"e. ;ikephilosophical red-ctionism, lin"-istic slippa"e can sim-ltaneo-sly ener"i


6/204

@e/ton4s physics, 2dam Smith4s theory of /ealth, or Mar+4s theory of class conflict as for evol-tion orsocio!iolo"y. 6no/ a little and, thro-"h mechanism Das if !y ma"icE, one can predict a

L

lot. his !rin"s -s to h-manity4s other alter a"o, the machine. 2s /ith the !o-ndary !et/een h-mans

and animals, the one !et/een h-mans and machines not only has a history !-t has !een e'-allyinfl-ential in shapin" h-man identity. )n some /ays, o-r relationship to machines has !een morepressin" and pro!lematic. @o one denics that h-man !ein"s are animals or that animals, in some veryimportant respects, resem!le h-man !ein"s. he '-estion has al/ays !een /hat kind of animal, or ho/different from others, are /e. B-t /hat does it mean if /e are machines or, perhaps more dist-r!in"ly,if some machines are like -sK

7o"er -man !e"ins the section, -mans and Machines, /ith several historical o!servations, /hichprovide a -sef-l conte+t for considerin" c-rrent de!ates a!o-t the comp-ter revol-tion and artificialintelli"ence. )n he Meanin" of the Mechanistic 2"e, -man distin"-ishes !et/een machines andthe concept of mechanism as it come to !e -nderstood in seventeenthAcent-ry 8-rope. Machines, henotes, have !een /ith -s since anti'-ity Dif not !eforeE, !-t prior to the Scientific 7evol-tion, theircreators rarely strove to make their /orkin"s visi!le. )ndeed, as a /ay of demonstratin" their o/ncleverness, they often deli!erately hid or dis"-ised the inner /orkin"s of their contrivances, m-ch likema"icians /ho keep their tricks secret. 8arly machines, in other /ords, did not offer themselves as!l-eprints for ho/ the /orld /orked. @or did they principally operate as a means of harnessin" andcontrollin" nat-ral forces for distinctively h-man p-rposes more likely, they served as am-sin" ordecorative c-rios. o/ever, in the /ake of the ne/ astronomy, the ne/ physics, and other discoveriesemphasi


7/204

metaphorical thinkin" /hen it applies to science. (or @e/ell, the !etter the metaphor, the /orse thescience. 2 scientific theory of mind, ho/ever, if achieved Dand @e/ell !elieves /e are /ell on o-r/ay to/ard achievin" oneE, /o-ld !e '-ite another matter. e insists that, -nlike the artificialrhetorical device of metaphor, theories formally or"ani


8/204

their mechanisms as leadin" to the a"e of reason, -rkle4s empirical approach -nderscores aparado+ial reaction in the other direction. Comp-ters, she reminds -s, present a scintillatin" s-rfaceand e+citin" comple+ !ehavior !-t no /indo/, as do thin"s that have "ears, p-lleys, and levers, in theirinternal str-ct-re. @otin" that romaniticsm /as, at least in part, a reaction to the rationalism of the8nli"htenment, -rkle raises the possi!ility that the very opacity of comp-ter technolo"y, alon" /iththe kind of disill-sionment e+pressed !y *ino"rad, mi"ht !e leadin" -s to romantici


9/204

that /e are machines think that other animals are machines, too. )n addition, the '-estions are tooeasily ans/ere.d *e are, strai"htfor/ardly, animals, !-t /e are not, strai"htfor/ardly, machines. *eare a distinctive kind of animal !-t not any distinctive kind of machine. *e are a kind of animal in thesame /ay that any other species is a kind of animal/e are, for instance, a kind of primate.

Etho*o(y and !u*ture

Since /e are a kind of animal, there are ans/ers in o-r case to the '-estion that can !e asked a!o-t anyanimal, o/ does it liveK Some of these ans/ers are more or less the same for all h-man !ein"s/herever and /henever they live, and of those -niversal ans/ers, some are distinctively tr-e of h-man!ein"s and do not apply to other animals. here are other ans/ers to the '-estion, ho/ h-man !ein"slive, that vary strikin"ly from place to place and, still more si"nificantly, from time to time. Some otherspecies, too, display !ehavior that varies re"ionallythe calls of certain !irds are an e+ample!-t thede"ree of s-ch variation in h-man !ein"s is of a '-ite different order of ma"nit-de. Moreover, andmore f-ndamentally, these variations essentially depend on the -se of lan"-a"e and, associated /iththat, the non"enetic transmission of information !et/een "enerations, feat-res that are, of co-rse,themselves amon" the most important -niversal characteristics distinstice of h-man !ein"s. hisvariation in the /ays that h-man !ein"s live is c-lt-ral

1F

variation, and it is an etholo"ical fact that h-man !ein"s live -nder c-lt-re Da fact represented in theancient doctrine that their nat-re is to live !y conventionE.

*ith h-man !ein"s, if yo- specify the ethnolo"ical in detail, yo- are inevita!ly led to the c-lt-ral. (ore+ample, h-man !ein"s typically live in d/ellin"s. So, in a sense, do termites, !-t in the case of h-man!ein"s, the description opens into a series of c-lt-ral specifications. Some h-man !ein"s live in ad/ellin" made !y themselves, some in one made !y other h-man !ein"s. Some /ho make d/ellin"sare constrained to make them, others are re/arded for doin" so in either case, they act in "ro-ps /ith a

division of la!or, and so on. )f one is to descri!e any of these activities ade'-ately and so e+plain /hatthese animals are -p to, one has to ascri!e to them the comple+ intentions involved in sharin" a c-lt-re.

here are other dimensions of c-lt-re and f-rther types of comple+ intention. Some of the d/ellin"ssystematically vary in form, !ein" fo-r!edroom >ictorians, for instance, or in the Palladian style, andthose descriptions have to !e -sed in e+plainin" the variations. S-ch styles and traditons involve kindsof intentions that are not merely comple+ !-t selfAreferential: the intentions refer to the tradition, and atthe same time, it is the e+istence of s-ch intentions that constit-tes the tradition. raditions of this kinddisplay another feat-re that they share /ith many other c-lt-ral phenomena: they imply aconscio-sness of past time, historical or mythical. his conscio-sness itself has !ecome more refle+iveand comple+ in th co-rse of h-man development, a!ove all, /ith the introd-ction of literacy. 2ll h-man

!ein"s live -nder c-lt-re many live /ith an idea of their collective past some live /ith the idea ofs-ch an idea.

2ll of this is etholo"y, or an e+tension of ethnolo"y if one is "oin" to -nderstand a species that lives-nder c-lt-re, one has to -nderstand its c-lt-res. B-t it is not all !iolo"y. So ho/ m-ch is !iolo"yK 2nd/hat does that '-estion meanK ) shall s-""est a line of tho-"ht a!o-t similarities and differences.

he story so far implies thar some differences in the !ehavior of h-man "ro-ps are e+plained in termsof their different c-lt-res and not in !iolo"ical terms. his may enco-ra"e the idea that c-lt-re e+plainsdifferences and !iolo"y e+plains similarities. B-t this is not necessarily so. )ndeed, in more than onerespect, the '-estion is not /ell posed. (irst, there is the a!sol-tely "eneral point that a "enetic


10/204

infl-ence /ill e+press itself in a partic-lar /ay only "ranted a certain sort of environment. 2 strikin"e+ample of s-ch an interaction is provided !y t-rtles4 e""s, /hich if they are e+posed to a temperat-re!elo/ #$ de"rees Celsi-s at a certain point in development yield a female t-rtle !-t if to a hi"hertemperat-re, a male one. Moreover, the possi!le interactions are

1 comple+, and many cases cannot !e characteri


11/204

processin" device. his, in t-rn, represents a !elief in a research pro"ram, that of psycholo"y asco"nitive science. o/ever, the claim that h-man !ein"s are in this sense machines involves more thanthe claim that h-man !ein"s are s-ch that co"nitive science is a "ood pro"rma for psycholo"y. it m-stalso imply that psycholo"y provides an ade'-ate pro"ram for -nderstandin" h-man !ein"s this is apoint ) shall come !ack to.

o some e+tent, the claim that h-man !ei"ns can !e -nderstood in terms of psycholo"y as co"nitive

science m-st s-rely !e an empirical one, to !e tested in the s-ccess of the research pro"ram. (or anempirical claim, ho/ever, it has attracted a s-rprisin" amo-nt of a priori criticism, desi"nedto sho/that the -ndertakin" is mistaken in principle. ;ess e+treme, o!vio-sly, than either the comprehensiveresearch pro"ram or the comprehensive ref-tation of it is the modest s-""estion that this kind of model/ill !e val-a!le for -nderstandin" h-man !ein"s in some respects !-t not others. he s-""estion isinitially attractive !-t at the same time very indeterminate, and, of co-rse, it may t-rn o-t that, likesome other compromises, it is attractive only !eca-se it is indeterminate. ) sho-ld like to raise the'-estion of ho/ the compromise mi"ht !e made more determinate.

hose /ho /ant to prod-ce a comprehensive ref-tation of the pro"ram sometimes make the o!3ectionthat only a livin" thin" can have a psycholo"y. his can mean t/o different thin"s. =ne is thatpsycholo"ical processes, of /hatever kind, co-ld !e reali


12/204

connections !-ilt -p in o-r e+istence, most of them -nconscio-s. he associations are associations forus: the creative idea m-st strike a !ell that /e can hear. )n the sense that a device can !e pro"rammedto !e a pro!lem solver, there may !e, in these connectoins, no antecedent pro!lem. D5ia"hilev, askin"Coctea- for a ne/ !allet, memora!ly said, tonne!moi, Jean.E @one of this is to deny that there may!e a description in physical terms of /hat "oes on /hen a h-man !ein" comes -p /ith somethi"n ne/and interesitn". hey diffic-lty for the research pro"ram is that there is no reason to e+pect that in these

connections, at least, there /ill !e an e+planatory psycholo"ical acco-nt at the levle that it /ants, lyin"!et/een the physical acco-nt, on the one hand, and a f-lly interpretive acco-nt, /hich itself -sesnotions s-ch as meanin", on the other.

he activities and e+periences that i have mentioned as providin" a diffic-lty for the research pro"ramare all specifically h-man. 2ltho-"h it may sometimes have !een ar"-ed that some s-ch holisticfeat-res m-st !elon" to any mentality at all, the most convincin" acco-nt of the pro!lem connects them/ith special feat-res of h-man conscio-sness and c-lt-re. he '-estion on these iss-es that i sho-ldlike to leave for consideration is the foolo/in": )f /e "rant this m-ch, /hat follo/s for activities and,partic-larly, a!ilities that h-man !ein"s do prima facie

1% share /ith other creat-resK )f /e "rant /hat has 3-st !een s-""ested, there /ill not !e an ade'-ateco"ntiiveAscientific acco-nt of /hat it is to feel em!arrassment, or of reco"ni


13/204

to /hich dynamics applies are "olf !alls.G0H )t may !e said here that the sit-ation /ith concepts s-ch as"elief, desire,and intentionis different,

19

!eca-se they, -nlike the concept of a "olf !all, have e+planatory am!itions, and folk psycholo"y,

correspondin"ly, is in the same line of !-siness as the theory, call it co"nitive science, that /ill prod-cemore developed e+planations. B-t this is to pres-ppose that co"nitive science does not need s-chconcepts to characteri


14/204

none of this re'-ires that s-ch thin"s as ermany4s declarin" /ar are logically reduci"leto individ-alactions. Dermany em!arked on /ar in 191F and a"ain in 19#9, !-t the types of individ-al action thatocc-rred /ere different. (or one thin", ermany had different constit-tions in these years.E @or is itimplied that the concepts that occ-r in individ-als4 intentions and in the descriptions of their actions cannecessarily !e red-ced to individ-alist terms in the co-rse of ermany4s declarin" /ar on someoccasion, someone no do-!t acted in the ca#acity of chancellor, and there is no credi!le -npackin" of

that conception in p-rely individ-alist terms. 2"ain, it is a matter not only of the content of a"ents4intentions !-t of their ca-ses. Some of the intentions that a"ents have may /ell re'-ire e+planation inirred-ci!ly social terms. h-s, some intentions of the person /ho is erman Chancell or /ill have to!e e+plained in terms of his !ein" erman Chancellor.G11H

*hat is tr-e is that each action is e+plained, in the first place, !y an individ-al4s psycholo"y /hat isnot tr-e is that the individ-al4s psycholo"y is entirely e+plained !y psycholo"y. here are h-mansciences other than psycholo"y, and there is not the sli"htest reason to s-ppose that one can -nderstandh-manity /itho-t them.

o/ the h-man sciences are related to one anotherindeed, /hat e+actly the h-man sciences areis am-chAdisc-ssed '-estion that ) shall not try to take -p. ) hope that if /e are a!le to take a correctapproach to the /hole iss-e, this /ill make it less alarmin" than some o!vio-sly find it to accept thatthe h-man sciences sho-ld essentially deploy notions of intention and meanin" and that they sho-ldflo/ into and o-t of st-dies s-ch as history, philosophy, literary criticism, and the history of art /hichare la!eled the h-manities and perhaps are not called sciences at all. )f it is an etholo"ical tr-th thath-man !ein"s live -nder c-lt-re, and if that fact makes it intelli"i!le that they sho-ld live /ith ideas ofthe past and /ith increasin"ly comple+ conceptions of the ideas that they themselves have, then it is noins-lt to the scientific spirit that a st-dy of them sho-ld re'-ire an insi"ht into those c-lt-res, into theirprod-cts, and into their real and ima"ined histories.

Some resistance to identifyin" the h-man sciences in s-ch tersm

&1 h-manistic terms, as /e mi"ht saycomes, no do-!t, simply from v-l"ar scientism and a ref-sal toaccept the tr-th, at once po/erf-l and limitin", that there is no physics !-t physics. B-t there are otherreasons as /ell, to !e fo-nd closer to the h-man sciences themselves. ) have s-""ested so far that!iolo"y, here as else/here, re'-ires etholo"y and that the etholo"y of the h-man involves the st-dy ofh-man c-lt-res. ;ookin" in a different direction, ) have s-""ested that psycholo"y as co"nitive science,/hatever place of its o/n it may t-rn o-t to have, sho-ld not have -niversalist and a-tonomo-saspirations. B-t there is a different kind of challen"e to the h-mane st-dy of h-manity, /hich comesfrom c-lt-ral st-dies themselves. ) cannot in this conte+t do m-ch more than mention it, !-t it sho-ld!e mentioned, since it raises real '-estions, sometimes takes the form of e+trava"antly deconstr-ctiveam!itions, and often elicits -nhelpf-lly conservative defenses.

his challen"e is directed to the role of the h-manities no/. )t is !ased not on any scientificconsiderations, or on any "eneral characteristics of h-man life, !-t on certain feat-res of the modernor perhaps, in one sense of that m-ltip-rpose e+pression, postmodern/orld.

he claim is that this /orld is li!erated from, or at least floatin" free from, the past, and that in this/orld, history is kitsch. 2!ove all, it is a /orld in /hich partic-lar c-lt-ral formations are of declinin"importance and are !ecomin" o!3ects of an interest that is merely nostalo"ic or concerned /ith thepict-res'-ethat is to say, a commercial interest.

)f applied to -r need for historical -nderstandin", s-ch a vie/ is s-rely selfAdefeatin", !eca-se the ideas


15/204

of modernity and postmodernity are themselves historical cate"ories they em!ody an interpretation ofthe past. his /o-ld !e tr-e even if the conception of a "eneral modernity completely transcendin"local and c-lt-ral variation /ere correct. B-t it remains to !e seen /hether that conception is evencorrect there is no reason at the moment, as ) -nderstand the sit-ation, to s-ppose that patterns ofdevelopment are independent of history and c-lt-re So-th 6orea and >ictorian 8n"land are !y nomeans the same place. B-t ho/ever that may !e, these are indisp-ta!ly matters for historical and

c-lt-ral -nderstandin".*hat is more pro!lematic is o-r relation in the modern /orld to the literat-re and art of the past. =-rhistorical interest in ito-r interest in it as, for instance, evidence of the pastraises no special'-estion, !-t the st-dy of the h-manities has al/ays "one !eyond this, in enco-ra"in" and informin" aninterest in certain /orks, picked o-t !oth !y their '-ality and their relation to a partic-lar tradition, asc-lt-ral o!3ects for -s, as formative of o-r e+perience. here is o!vio-sly a "reat deal to !e said a!o-tthis and a!o-t s-ch phenomena as the interest sho/n !y all developin" co-ntries in the canon of8-ropean paintin" and m-sic.

&&

Some of /hat needs to !e said is o!vio-sly ne"ative, and it is a real '-estion /hether certain famo-sart/orks can s-rvivea fe/ of them physically, all of them aestheticallytheir internationalmarketin". B-t the conversion of /orks of art into commodities is one thin", and theirinternationali


16/204

&0

One2Introdu0tion

James J. Sheehan)n 1%1$, *illiam Blake painted a pict-re that came to !e kno/n asAdam $aming the Beasts. Blake4sportrait of the first man reminds -s of a By


17/204

trans"ression across the species !arrier, /as officially re"arded as the /orst sin a"ainst nat-re itremained a capital crime in 8n"land -ntil the second half of the nineteenth cent-ry. -manity4s properrelationship to animals /as that of master !easts e+isted to serve h-man needs. Since !easts lackreason, Saint 2-"-stine ta-"ht, /e need not concern o-rselves /ith their s-fferin"s, an opinionechoed !y an 2n"lican !ishop in the seventeenth cent-ry /ho declared, *e may p-t them GanimalsH toany kind of death that the necessity either of o-r food or physic /ill re'-ire. 8ven those /ho took a

softer vie/ of h-manity4s relationship /ith animals !elieved that o-r he"emony over the /orldreflected o-r special ties to the creator. Man not only r-les the animals !y force, the 7enaissancephilosopher, (icino, /rote, he also "overns, keeps and teaches them. Universal providence !elon"s tood, /ho is the -niversal ca-se. ence man /ho "enerally provides for all thin"s, !oth livin" andlifeless, is a kind of od.GFH

2ltho-"h set apart from the rest of creation !y their privile"ed relationship /ith od, many Christiansfelt a special kinship to animals. 2s 6eith homas sho/s in his splendid st-dy,Man and the $atural%orkd,so close /ere the ties of people to the animals amon" /hom they lived that often domestic!easts /ere s-!sidiary mem!ers of the h-man comm-nity. @o less important than these pressin"sympathies of everyday interA

&9

dependence /ere the /ei"ht of c-lt-ral ha!it and the persistent po/er of halfAfor"otten !eliefs. Until/ell into the ei"hteenth cent-ry, many (-ropeans vie/ed the /orld anthropomorphically, imposin" onanimals h-man traits and emotions, holdin" them responsi!le for their crimes, admirin" them fortheir alle"ed e+pressions of pio-s sentiment. 2ltho-"h condemned !y the orthodo+ and ridic-led !ysec-lar intellect-als, !elief in the spirit-ality of animals persisted. 2s late as the 100$s, an 8n"lishcler"yman co-ld /rite, ) firmly !elieve that !easts have so-ls so-ls tr-ly and properly soAcalled.GH

By the end of the ei"hteenth cent-ry, s-ch convictions /ere s-rely e+ceptional amon" ed-cated menand /omen. he e+pansion of scientific kno/led"e since the 7enaissance had helped to prod-ce a

vie/ of the /orld in /hich there seemed to !e little room for animal so-ls. he "reat classificationschemes of the late seventeenth and ei"hteenth cent-ries enco-ra"ed rational, sec-lar, and scientificconceptions of the nat-ral order. 2s a res-lt, the anthropomorphic attit-des that had invested animalsand even plants/ith h-man characteristics "rad-ally receded nat-re /as no/ seen as somethin"apart from h-man affairs, a realm to !e st-died and mastered /ith the instr-ments of science. ere ishomas4s concise s-mmary of this process:

)n place of a nat-ral /orld redolent /ith h-man analo"y and sym!olic meanin", andsensitive to man4s !ehavior, they Gthe nat-ral scientistsH constr-cted a detached nat-ralscene to !e vie/ed and st-died !y the o!server from the o-tside, as if !y peerin" thro-"h a/indo/, in the sec-re kno/led"e that the o!3ects of contemplation inha!ited a separaterealm, offerin" no omens or si"ns, /itho-t h-man meanin" or si"nificance.GLH

*ithin this ne/ /orld, h-mans4 claims to he"emony /ere !ased on their o/n rational fac-lties ratherthan divine dispensation. 7eason !ecame the 3-stification as /ell as the means of h-manity4s mastery.Beca-se they lack reason, 5escartes ar"-ed, animals /ere like machines, /itho-t so-ls, intelli"ence, orfeelin". 2nimals do not act independently, it is nat-re that acts in them accordin" to the arran"ementof their or"ans, 3-st as /e see ho/ a clock, composed merely of /heels and sprin"s, can reckon theho-rs. 7o-ssea- a"reed. 8very animal, he /rote inA Discourse on &ne'uality,/as only an in"enio-smachine to /hich nat-re has "iven sense in order to keep itself in motion and protect itself. -mansare not in thrall to their instincts and senses -nlike !easts, /hen nat-re commands, h-mans need not


18/204

o!ey. (ree /ill, intellect, and a!ove all, the command of lan"-a"e "ives people the a!ility to choose,create, and comm-nicate.G0H

@ot every ei"hteenthAcent-ry thinker /as s-re that h-manity4s -n'-estioned -ni'-eness had s-rvivedthe sec-lari


19/204

!e"-n to e+amine this evol-tonary process in a systematic fashion. )n 1%$9, Jean Baptiste de ;amarckp-!lished(hiloso#hie )oologi'ue,/hich set forth a comple+ theory to e+plain the transformation ofspecies over time. Charles ;yell, /hose(rinci#les of *eology!e"an to appear in 1%#$, do-!ted!iolo"ical evol-tion !-t offered a compellin" acco-nt of the earth4s chan"in" character thro-"h the lon"corridors of "eolo"ic time. h-s /as the sta"e set for the arrival of 5ar/in4s +rigin of S#ecies,!y farthe most famo-s and infl-ential of all renditions of temporali


20/204

and Animals.ere he seeks to demonstrate that !asic emotions have common ori"ins and a !iolo"ical!ase !y pointin" o-t the similarity of emotional e+pressions amon" h-man societies and !et/eenh-mans and animals. ;ike reason, lan"-a"e, and conscio-sness, emotions s-ch as love, fear, and shameare not the sole and -ndisp-ted property of h-manity.G11H

he research pro"ram s-""ested in this /ork on h-man and animal emotions /as not immediatelytaken -p !y 5ar/in4s many disciples. here /ere, to !e s-re, many /ho so-"ht to apply 5ar/inism to

h-man society, !-t they -s-ally did so /itho-t a systematic e+amination of the resem!lances !et/eenh-man and animal !ehavior. o social scientists infl-enced !y 5ar/in, /hat mattered /as less thatpeople /ere animals than that they /ere stillin arriet 7itvo4s phrasethe top animals, separatedfrom the rest !y /hat 5a//in himself had called man4s no!le '-alities and "odlike intellect. Mostof the nat-ral scientists /ho follo/ed 5ar/in t-rned in the opposite direction, a/ay from h-mansto/ard other species /ith lon"er evol-tionary histories and more accessi!le !iolo"ical str-ct-res. 2s ares-lt, empirical /ork on the connection !et/een h-man and animal !ehavior, so central to 5ar/in4s/ork on emotions, did not !ecome an important part of his le"acy -ntil the second half of the t/entiethcent-ry.G1&H

he direct heirs of 5ar/in4s research on h-man and animal emotion /ere scientists /ho st-died!ehavioral !iolo"y, the discipline that /o-ld come to !e called etholo"y. 2ltho-"h important researchon etholo"y had !een cond-cted d-rin" the 19&$s and 19#$s, the s-!3ect did not !ecome prominent-ntil the 19L$s in 190#, three leadin" etholo"ists shared the @o!el Pri


21/204

of different developments in !ehavioral !iolo"y. ;ike many other controversial movements,socio!iolo"y often seems more solid and coherent to its opponents, /ho can easily define /hat theyoppose, than to its advocates, /ho have some tro-!le a"reein" on /hat they have in common. )t is/orth notin", for e+ample, that Melvin 6onner, /hile sympathetic to *ilson in many /ays, e+plicitlydenies tht his o/n /ork, The Tangled %ingD19%&E, is socio!iolo"y. B-t /hat 6onner and thesocio!iolo"ists do share is the !elief that most st-dies of h-man !ein"s have !een too

anthropocentric. )f, as *ilson and others claim, homo sapiens is a conventional animal species,then there is m-ch to !e learned !y vie/in" the h-man e+perience as part of a !roader !iolo"icalcontin--m. 5oin" so /ill help -s to -nderstand /hat 5ar/in, in the dark passa"e at

#F

the end of The Descent of Man,referred to as the indeli!le stamp of his lo/ly ori"in /hich man stillcarries in his !ody and /hat 6onner, in a contemporary version of the same ar"-ment, calls the!iolo"ical constraints on the h-man spirit.G1H

*e /ill ret-rn to some of the '-estions raised !y socio!iolo"y in the concl-sion to this vol-me. (or themoment, it is eno-"h to point o-t that the conflicts s-rro-ndin" itill-strated !y the /orks of 6onnerand 5-pr? in the follo/in" sectionare ne/ versions of ancient controversies. hese controversies,/hile informed !y o-r e+pandn" kno/led"e of the nat-ral /orld and e+pressed in the idiom of o-rscientific c-lt-re, have at thier core o-r persistent need to define /hat it means to !e h-man, a need thatleads -s, 3-st as it led the a-thors of ene+is, to confront o-r kinship /ith and differences fromanimals.

T3o2The Horror of Monsters4

"rno*d I. -a)idson2s late as 19F1, ;-cien (e!vre, the "reat (rench historian, co-ld complain that there /as no history oflove, pity, cr-elty, or 3oy. e called for a vast collective investi"ation to !e opened on the f-ndamentalsentiments of man and the forms they take.G1H 2ltho-"h (e!vre did not e+plicitly invoke horroramon" the sentiments to !e investi"ated, a history of horror can, as ) hope to sho/, f-nction as anirred-ci!le reso-rce in -ncoverin" o-r forms of s-!3ectivity.G&H Moreover, /hen horror is co-pled tomonsters, /e have the opport-nity to st-dy systems of tho-"ht that are concerned /ith the relation!et/een the orders of morality and of nat-re. ) /ill concentrate here on those monsters that seem to callinto '-estion, to pro!lemati


22/204

form of sensi!ility, or type of affectivity, 2ny s-ch history /o-ld re'-ire an investi"ation of

#0

"est-res, ima"es, attit-des, !eliefs, lan"-a"e, val-es, and concepts. (-rthermore, the pro!lem '-icklyarose as to ho/ one sho-ld -nderstand the relationship !et/een elite and pop-lar c-lt-re, ho/, for

e+ample, the concepts and lan"-a"e of an elite /o-ld come to !e appropriated and transformed !y acollective mentality.GFH his pro!lem is especially ac-te for the horror of monsters, since so many ofthe concepts ) disc-ss /hich are ncessary to o-t -nderstandin" of monsters come from hi"h c-lt-rescientific, philosophical, and theolo"ical te+ts. o /hat e+tent is the e+perience of horror, /hene+pressed in a collective mentality, "iven from !y these conceptsK *itho-t even attemptin" to ans/erthese '-estions here, ) /ant to insist that a history of horror, at !oth the level of elite concepts andcollective mentality, m-st emphasi


23/204

he alle"orical e+e"esis of these monsters is intended to sho/ that each monster has a very specific

#9

(i". &.&.he MonkACalf.

interpretation that can !e "rasped !eca-se, in one /ay or another, it is represented !efore o-r eyes inthe constit-tion of the monster itself each monster is a divine hiero"lyphic, e+hi!itin" a partic-larfeat-re of od4s /rath. So, for instance, the popeAass, accordin" to Melancthon, is the ima"e of theCh-rch of 7ome and 3-st as it is a/f-l that a h-man !ody sho-ld have the head of an ass, so it islike/ise horri!le that the Bishop of 7ome sho-ld !e the head of the Ch-rch. Similarly, the overly

F$

lar"e ears of the calfAmonk e+hi!it od4s deno-ncement of the practice of hearin" confessions, soimportant to the monks, /hile the han"in" ton"-e sho/s that their doctrine is nothin" !-t frivolo-sprattle.

2 -sef-l st-dy co-ld !e made of the ad3ectives that appear in this te+t in lie- of s-ch a st-dy, let me3-st note that horri!le and a!omina!le occ-r fre'-ently in !oth ;-ther4s and Melancthon4sdisc-ssions, often modifyin" monster. he mood of these ad3ectives is acc-rately conveyed in thetranslator4s introd-ction to the 109 8n"lish translation of the te+t. )t !e"ins:

2mon" all the thin"s that are to !e seen -nder the heavens D"ood Christian readerE there isnothin" can stir -p the mind of man, and /hich can en"ender more fear -nto the creat-resthan the horri!le monsters, /hich are !ro-"ht forth daily contrary to the /orks of @at-re.

he /hich the most times do note and demonstrate -nto -s the ire and /rath of od a"ainst-s for o-r sins and /ickedness, that /e have and do daily commit a"ainst him.G1$H

John Brooke "oes on to tell -s that his motive for translatin" this pamphlet is the !etter to move thehearts of every "ood Christian to fear and trem!le at the si"ht of s-ch prodi"io-s monsters,G11H and he/arns his readers not to interpret these t/o monsters as if they /ere !-t fa!les. e closes his preface/ith the hope that, after readin" this pamphlet, /e shall repent in time from the !ottom of o-r heartsof o-r sins, and desire him GodH to !e mercif-l -nto -s, and ever to keep and defend -s from s-chhorri!le monsters.G1&H e concl-des /ith a fe/ more specific remarks a!o-t the popeAass and calfAmonk addressed, and /e shall not overlook the form of the address, -nto all /hich fear the ;ord.

)n order to !etter -nderstand the preocc-pation and fascination /ith monsters d-rin" the si+teenth

cent-ry, a fascination fastened onto !y ;-ther and Melancthon, /hose te+t is f-lly representative of anentire "enre, /e m-st place these disc-ssions /ithin a /ider conte+t. 2s Jean 5el-mea- has ar"-ed inthe second vol-me of his history of fear, it is /ithin the frame/ork of a "lo!al pessimistic 3-d"menton a time of e+treme /ickedness that one m-st place the copio-s literat-re dedicated to monsters andprodi"ies !et/een the end of the fifteenth cent-ry and the !e"innin" of the seventeenth.G1#HSinf-lness /as so "reat that the sins of men e+tended to nat-re itself /hich, /ith od4s permission andfor the instr-ction of sinners, seemed to have !een sei


24/204

partic-lar sins !-t they also anno-nced "reater p-nishments to come/ar, famine, and perhaps eventhe end of the

F1

/orld. his proliferation of monsters presa"ed a dark f-t-re e+plained !y od4s /rath at the increase of

/ickedness on earth.G1FH (ranNais Belleforest s-mmari


25/204

provided they !e performed in d-e manner and order, in keepin" /ith the end of h-manprocreation.G19H

e proceeds in the first article of O-estion 1F to differentiate si+ species of l-stsimple fornication,ad-ltery, incest, sed-ction, rape, and the vice contrary to nat-reall of /hich are disc-ssed in theremainin" articles.

My concern is /ith the vices contrary to nat-re, /hich are disc-ssed in 2rticles 11 and 1&. )n 2rticle11, he ar"-es that this type of vice is a distinct species of l-st, since it involves a special kind ofdeformity vices contrary to nat-re are not only contrary to ri"ht reason, as are all the l-stf-l vices, !-tare also contrary to the nat-ral order of the venereal act as !ecomin" to the h-man race, /hich orderhas as its end the "eneration of children.G&$H 2'-inas distin"-ishes fo-r cate"ories of vice contrary tonat-re!estiality, sodomy, /hich he interprets as malemale or femalefemale cop-lation, the sin ofselfAa!-se, and not o!servin" the nat-ral manner of cop-lation. )t is diffic-lt to determine e+actly /hatfalls -nder this last cate"ory, !-t it is clear from ))A)), O-estion 1F, 2rticle 1&, 7eply to =!3ection F,that malefemale anal and oral cop-lation are t/o of the most "rievo-s /ays of not o!servin" the ri"htmanner of cop-lation.

)n 2rticle 1&, 2'-inas rankAorders, from /orst to least /orst, all of the l-stf-l vices. e claims, first,

that all fo-r cate"ories of vice contrary to nat-re are /orse than any of the other vices of l-st. So that!estiality, sodomy, not o!servin" the nat-ral manner of cop-lation, and selfAa!-se are /orse, !eca-seof their special deformity, than ad-ltery, rape of a vir"in, incest, and so on.G&1H >ices contrary to nat-reare /orse in kind and not merely in de"ree than other l-stf-l vices. 2'-inas then "oes on to rankAorderthe vices contrary to nat-re. he least !ad of these vices is selfAa!-se, since the "ravity of a sindepends more on the a!-se of a thin" than on the omission of the ri"ht -se.G&&H @e+t /orse is the sinof not o!servin" the ri"ht manner of cop-lation, and this sin is more "rievo-s if the a!-se concerns theri"ht vessel than if it affects the manner of cop-lation in respect of other circ-mstances. hird /orse issodomy, since -se of the ri"ht se+ is not o!served. (inally, the most "rievo-s of all the vices contrary tonat-re, and so the most "rievo-s of any l-stf-l vice,

F#

is !estiality, since the -se of the d-e species is not o!served moreover, in this instance, 2'-inase+plicitly cites a !i!lical te+t as s-pport.GH =ne final remark of 2'-inas4s m-st !e mentioned !efore )t-rn to Par?. 2!o-t the vices contrary to nat-re, from mast-r!ation to !estiality, 2'-inas /rites,

3-st as the orderin" of ri"ht reason proceeds from ne, so the order of nat-re is from odimself: /herefore in sins contrary to nat-re, /here!y the very order of nat-re is violated,an in3-ry is done to od, the 2-thor of nat-re.G&FH

o act contrary to nat-re is nothin" less than to act directly contrary to the /ill of od.

=ne may -nderstanda!ly !e /onderin" ho/ this disc-ssion of 2'-inas is relevant to the treatment ofmonsters, so let me t-rn immediately to Par?4sDes monstres et #rodiges. he preface to his !ook!e"ins as follo/s:

Monsters are thin"s that appear o-tside the co-rse of @at-re Dand are -s-ally si"ns of someforthcomin" misfort-neE, s-ch as a child /ho is !orn /ith one arm, another /ho /ill havet/o heads, and additional mem!ers over and a!ove the ordinary.

Prodi"ies are thin"s /hich happen that are completely a"ainst @at-re, as /hen a /oman/ill "iven !irth to a serpent, or to a do", or some other thin" that is totally a"ainst @at-re,as /e shall sho/ hereafter thro-"h several e+amples of said monsters and prodi"ies.G&H


26/204

Cerd has ar"-ed that Par? /as some/hat indifference to the pro!lem of precisely ho/ one sho-lddistin"-ish monsters from prodi"ies. Monsters and prodi"ies did not constit-te a!sol-tely separateclasses and d-rin" the s-ccessive editions of his !ook, Cerd thin"s Par? !ecame more and moreconvinced that the term monster /as s-fficient to desi"nate all of these phenomena.G&LH B-t ho/everimprecise and -nartic-lated this distinction mi"ht appear, the idea that there /as a separate class ofphenomena, prodi"ies, that /ere completely a"ainst nat-re affected the lan"-a"e, attit-de, and

concept-ali


27/204

disorder that they make in cop-lation, like !r-tish !easts. . . . Similarly, Moses for!ids s-chco-plin" in ;evitic-s DChapter 1LE Dfi". &.#E.G#$H

he creat-res disc-ssed in this chapter are prod-ced !y the nat-ral ca-se of the f-sin" to"ether ofstran"e species, !-t, more important,

F

(i". &.#.2 colt /ith a man4s head.

their, so to speak, first ca-se is od4s /rath at the cop-lation !et/een h-man !ein"s and other species,a practice that is e+plicitly for!idden in ;evitic-s. he res-lt is not only a monster !-t a prodi"y, acreat-re that is contrary to nat-re and that is descri!ed as completely a!horrent.

)f /e t-rn to the chapter that treats the nat-ral ca-se of the mi+t-re or min"lin" of seed, /e find Par?

endorsin" the principle that nat-re al/ays strives to create its likeness since nat-re al/ays preserves itskind and species, /hen t/o animals of different species cop-late, the res-lt /ill !e a creat-re thatcom!ines the form of !oth of the species.G#1H he kind of nat-ralistic e+planation e+hi!ited in thischapter is, ho/ever, framed !y cr-cial openin" and closin" para"raphs, /hich ) '-ote at len"th. hechapter !e"ins /ith this statement:

here are monsters that are !orn /ith a form that is halfAanimal and halfAh-man . . . /hichare prod-ced !y sodomists and atheists /ho 3oin to"ether, and !reak o-t of their !o-ndscontrary to nat-re, /ith animals, and from this are !orn several monsters that are hideo-sand very scandalo-s to look at or speak a!o-t. Iet the dis"race lies in the deed and not in/ords and it is, /hen it is done, a very -nfort-nate and a!omina!le thin", and a "reathorror for a man or /oman to mi+ /ith and cop-late /ith !r-te animals and as a res-lt

some are !orn halfAmen and halfAanimals Dfi"s. &.F, &.E.G#&Hhe chapter closes /ith this:

@o/ ) shal refrain from /ritin" here a!o-t several other monsters en"endered from s-ch"rist, to"ether /ith their portraits, /hich are so hideo-s and a!omina!le, not only to see,!-t also to hear tell of, that, d-e to their

FL

(i". &.F.2 monstro-s lam!.

"reat loathsomeness ) have neither /anted to relate them nor have them portrayed. (or DasBoaist-a- says, after havin" related several sacred and profane stories, /hich are all filled/ith "rievo-s p-nishments for lechersE /hat can atheists and sodomists e+pect, /ho Das )said a!oveE co-ple a"ainst od and @at-re /ith !r-te animalsKG##H

*hat ) /ant to isolate is the con3-nction of od4s /rath at h-man diso!edience of his la/s Da


28/204

s-pernat-ral ca-seE /ith the prod-ction of a creat-re contrary to nat-re, a prodi"y, the reaction to/hich is horror and, finally, ) /ant to emphasi


29/204

concept of prodi"y. (-rthermore, the e+perience of horrror is a!sent from his descriptions. orror isappropriate only if occasioned !y a normative ca-se, the violation of some norm, as /hen the h-man/ill acts contrary to the divine /ill. he chapter that immediately follo/s Par?4s disc-ssion of the/rath of od concerns monsters ca-sed !y too "reat a '-antity of seed. Compare its openin" lan"-a"e/ith the lan"-a"e of the previo-s chapter already '-oted.

=n the "eneration of monsters, ippocrates says that if there is too "reat an a!-ndance of

matter, m-ltiple !irths /ill occ-r, or else a monstro-s child havin" s-perfl-o-s and -selessparts, s-ch as t/o heads, fo-r arms, fo-r le"s, si+ di"its on the hands and feet, or otherthin"s. 2nd on the contrary, if the seed is lackin" in '-antity, some mem!er /ill !e lackin",Gs-chH as feet or head, or Ghavin"H some other part missin" Dfi"s. &.L, &.0E.G#LH

8ven Par?4s disc-ssion of hermaphrodites in chapter L !ears no trace of horror, and /e see that theirformation is d-e entirely to nat-ral ca-ses,

F9

(i". &.L.8+amples of too "reat a '-antity of seed.

(i". &.0.8+amples of lack in the '-antity of seed.

$

(i". &.%.ermaphrodites.

/ith no admi+t-re of /illf-l violation of a norm Dfi". &.%E. ermaphrodites are monsters, not prodi"ies,nat-rally e+plica!le and normatively ne-tral.

)f /e read Par?4s treatise chapter !y chapter, /e find that horror is a normative reaction, a reactionen"endered !y a violation of a specific kind of norm. *hen ca-sal kno/led"e, that is, kno/led"e ofthe nat-ral ca-ses, is prod-ced to e+plain a monster, the effect of s-ch e+planation is to displace horror,

to alter o-r e+periences of the phenomenon /ith /hich /e are confronted. orror is linked to Par?4sdisc-ssion of s-pernat-ral ca-ses !eca-se the iss-e in these disc-ssions is al/ays the normativerelation !et/een the divine and h-man /ills. 2 horri!le prodi"y is prod-ced /hen the h-man /ill actscontrary to nat-re, contrary to the divine /ill, and so /hen this contrariness Das 2'-inas makesconcept-ally artic-late and as is reflected in Par?E involves the th/artin" of a very partic-lar kind ofnorm. ) see no reason to do-!t the acc-racy of Par?4s descriptions, of /here and /hen he e+periencedhorror, especially !eca-se this kind of description is confirmed in so many other treatises.G#0H )t strikesme as no odder that Par? and his contemporaries /o-ld e+periA


30/204

1

ence horror only /hen confronted !y a prodi"y, !y some especially vicio-s normative violation, thanthat the )sraelites of the =ld estament /o-ld come to e+perience horror at the seemin"lyhetero"eneo-s "ro-p of phenomena called a!ominations. 2nd the inverse relationship !et/een horrorand ca-sal e+planation is the other side of the similar relationship !et/een /onder and ca-sale+planation. 2 sense of /onder /as the appropriate reaction to the prod-ction of a miracle, 3-st as

horror /as the appropriate reaction to the prod-ction of a prodi"y. ;orraine 5aston has ar"-ed, ine+aminin" the decline of miracles and the sensi!ility of /onder, that it /as a+iomatic in thepsycholo"y of miracles that ca-sal kno/led"e drove o-t /onder, and in the seventeenth cent-ry theconverse /as also emphasi


31/204

the very case ) have '-oted, and is content to point o-t some differences !et/een Par?4s case and his,for e+ample, that his manApi" did not possess h-man hands. yson is ca-tio-s a!o-t /hether reco-rseto !estiality is ever re'-ired to e+plain s-ch monsters, !-t the main thr-st of his article is to sho/ thatca-sal e+planations of the kind he has prod-ced have a m-ch "reater e+planatory relevance than hasoften !een reco"ni


32/204

John Merrick, 1%%FQ%.

=ld estament. he -se of a!omina!le to descri!e prodi"ies remains ine+trica!ly linked to horror, as) have ar"-ed !-t the doctrine of nat-ral la/, a!sent from the =ld estament, decisively alters onefeat-re of the !i!lical conception. 2 st-dy of the relevant !i!lical passa"es /o-ld sho/ that it isprimarily one -ni'-ely specified people /ho, !eca-se of their special relation to od, feel horror ata!ominations. B-t in the te+ts ) have disc-ssed, it is rather as tho-"h the horror of sins contrary to

nat-re, and of the prod-cts that res-lt from them, is e+perienced !y all h-man !ein"s '-a rational!ein"s. (or the -se of nat-ral reason alone is s-fficient to "rasp the vicio-sness of sins contrary tonat-re, and !estialA

(i". &.1&.John Merrick.

L

(i". &.1#.Postmortem cast of the head and neck of John Merrick.

ity, for e+ample, is a violation of nat-ral la/, /hich re'-ires no special act of divine revelation to !ekno/n !-t is nothin" else than the rational creat-re4s participation in od4s eternal la/.GF#H So everyh-man !ein" o-"ht to e+perience horror at that /hich he kno/s, as a rational !ein", to !e contrary to

nat-re. )n this conte+t, the doctrine of nat-ral la/ helped to conceal the reco"nition that horror is ac-lt-ral and historical prod-ct and not demanded !y reason alone, a fact that is more easily reco"ni


33/204

and near the nose considera!le emaciation an astonishin" sensi!ility to chan"es in the /eather anenfee!lement of si"ht sometimes leadin" to !lindness a considera!le dimin-tion of all mental fac-ltiesoften c-lminatin" in insanity and even death Dfi". &.1FE.GFFH )ndeed, this relationship !et/een thevicio-sness of the sin and the patholo"y of the !ody even "ave rise to a "enre of a-topsy report, in/hich the a-topsy of a mast-r!ator /o-ld reveal that the effects of this loathsome ha!it had penetrated/ithin the !ody itself, affectin" the internal or"ans no less than the e+ternal appearance.GFH )n issot4s

3+nanisme, Dissertation sur les maladies #roduites #ar la mastur"ation,/e find the same kind ofterminolo"y and sensi!ility that accompanies 7enaissance descriptions of prodi"ies. issot opens hisdisc-ssion of cases, /ith /hich he has had firsthand e+perience, /ith the follo/in" pream!le:

My first case presents a scene /hich is dreadf-l. ) /as myself fri"htened the first time ) sa/the -nfort-nate patient /ho is its s-!3ect. ) then felt, more than ) ever had !efore, thenecessity of sho/in" yo-n" people all the horrors of the a!yss into /hich they vol-ntarilypl-n"e themselves.GFLH

2nd he invokes the idea of mast-r!ation as contrary to nat-re in strate"ically central passa"es.GF0H

)t is often said that issot4s treatise is the first scientific st-dy of mast-r!ation, and his !ook is en"-lfed!y medical terminolo"y and p-nct-ated !y attempts to "ive physiolo"ical e+planations of the

patholo"ical effects provoked !y mast-r!ation. B-t it is 3-st as evident that his !ook remains firmlyplaced /ithin a tradition of moral theolo"y, /hich !e"ins /ith a conception of mast-r!ation as anespecially vicio-s kind of l-st. )t prod-ces mental and physical disease and disorder, !-t even in thescienA

%

(i". &.1F.

5eath !y mast-r!ation.tific treatments ina-"-rated !y issot, it remains a vicio-s ha!it, not itself a disease !-t a moral crimea"ainst od and nat-re. issot !e"ins his !ook /ith the claim, /hich he says that physicians of all a"es-nanimo-sly !elieve, that the loss of one o-nce of seminal fl-id enfee!les one more than the loss offorty o-nces of !lood.GF%H e immediately reco"ni


34/204

/hich reco"ni


35/204

p-reA!red do".G%H 2s if to confirm that sodomy is contrary to nat-re and od, the relevant parts ofthe h-man !ody are transformed !y this activity so that they come to resem!le the !odily parts of ado". *hat co-ld !e more horrifyin" than the moral and physical transformation of the h-man into a!east, a manAdo" prod-ced no lon"er !y !estiality !-t !y the dis"-stin" practice of sodomy. ;on" afterthe classical disc-ssions of prodi"ies, the cate"ory of the contrary to nat-re contin-ed to mark o-t onef-ndamental domain of horror.

By the late nineteenth cent-ry, the e+periences provoked !y soAcalled freak sho/s already contrasted/ith the horror of the contrary to nat-re. 7ather than e+hi!itin" the physical conse'-ences of normativedeviation, the freaks e+hi!ited in sidesho/s and circ-ses /ere intended to am-se, entertain, and diverttheir a-diences. )n "eneral,

the -r!an /orkers /ho came to stare at freaks /ere !y and lar"e an -nsophisticateda-dience in search of cheap and simple entertainment. . . . )n the early 1%0$s *illiamCameron Co-p had introd-ced a t/oArin" concept /hile /orkin" /ith Barn-m and !y 1%%most sho/s revolved aro-nd a m-ltiple rin" system. he res-lt /as a drift to/ard "lamo-rand spectacle as the !asic prod-ct of the !i" sho/s. he tendency /as /ell developed !ythe early nineties and !ro-"ht specific chan"es to the e+hi!its. Contrasts of scalefatladies and livin" skeletons, "iants and d/arfsand e+hi!its involvin" internal contrasts!earded ladies, hermaphroditic men and ladies toyin" /ith snakes!e"an to displace themore rep-lsive e+hi!its. 2s the sho/s /ere frei"hted /ith fe/er m-tilated horrors they!ecame less emotionally loaded and less comple+ as e+periences.G9H

)t sho-ld !e noted that part of the p-rpose of the m-ltipleArin" circ-s /o-ld have !een defeated !y thedisplayin" of horrors. (or if havin" more than one rin" /as intended to "et the spectators to look frome+hi!it to e+hi!it, to "a


36/204

8ven if /e p-t aside the fact that the cate"ories of freaks and prodi"ies /ere !y no means composed ofthe same specimens, /e can see ho/ different this e+perience of freaks /as !y e+aminin" photo"raphof them. Charles 8isenmann /as a Bo/ery photo"rapher /ho took many portraits of freaks d-rin" thelate nineteenth cent-ry. Some of these photo"raphs represent characters that are halfAh-man and halfAanimal and so, at least in this respect, can !e tho-"ht of as s-ccessors to the medieval and 7enaissanceprodi"ies prod-ced !y !estiality. B-t these photo"raphs e+hi!it no indication of horror. 2very Childs,

the (ro" Boy, is evocative and am-sin"ly photo"raphed !-t no more horrifyin" than a contortionist, hisslippers emphasi


37/204

of reason, /hich animals lacked, distin"-ished h-manity as . . . intended for hi"her d-ties, and amore e+alted destiny.G#H his confidence ins-lated them from the implications of s-ch dis'-ietin"reco"nitions as the follo/in", taken from an early >ictorian


38/204

/hether or not they like them, or /hether they /ish to protect them or to e+ploit them.G%H

B-t this repeatedly avo/d ta+onomy is not the /hole story, either a!o-t the relationship of h-man!ein"s to other species or a!o-t the /ay that people have perceived and interpreted that relationship.here are other inde+es of !elief and -nderstandin" than e+plicit declarations. )n the case of otheranimals, and especially the mammalian species that h-man !ein"s resem!le most closely, the e+plicitdenial of contin-ity may parado+ically have freed people to artic-late, in a veiled and -nselfconscio-s

/ay, their competin" sense of similarity and connection. 2 lot of evidence s-""ests that /hen peopleare not tryin" to deny that h-mans and animals !elon" to the same moral and intellect-al contin--m,they a-tomatically ass-me that they do. 5isco-rses that seem to refer e+cl-sively to animals arefre'-ently shaped !y c-lt-ral constr-ctions clearly derived from h-man society, even in the scientificand technolo"ical fields /here it mi"ht seem that s-ch constr-ctions /o-ld !e co-nterprod-ctive, o-tof place, and easy to identify and discard. he conse'-ences of this -nackno/led"ed connection haveoften !een enormo-s, even in the !ehavioral sciences most stron"ly committed to reinforcin" thedichotomy !et/een h-mans and animals. h-s, it is no accident that the !a!oon st-dies p-!lished !y S.;. *ash!-rn and )rven 5e>ore in the 19$s and 19L$s stressed the importance of male dominancehierarchies. 2nalo"o-sly, the research -ndertaken !y the increasin" n-m!er of female primatolo"ists inthe past t/o decades has emphasi


39/204

meas-re, to perform the same office that the earth does for ve"eta!les . . . nothin" more than areceptacle, in /hich are deposited the seeds of "eneration.G11H 2 fe/ years later, *illiam Io-att, themost distin"-ished British veterinarian of the early >ictorian period and a prolific /riter on domesticanimals, reco-nted the follo/in" story as an ill-stration of the need to control the ima"ination of evenso d-ll a !east as the co/: a certain co/ chanced to come in season, /hile past-rin" on a field . . . o-tof /hich an o+ 3-mped, and /ent /ith the co/, -ntil she /as !ro-"ht home to the !-ll. he o+ /as

/hite, /ith !lack spots, and horned. Mr. M-stard Gthe o/ner of the co/H had not a horned !east in hispossession, nor one /ith any /hite on it. @evertheless, the prod-ce of the follo/in" sprin" /as a !lackand /hite calf /ith horns.G1&H 8arly in the t/entieth cent-ry, J-dith @eville ;ytton, a prominent ificonoclastic and com!ative mem!er of the toy do" fancy, s-""ested the follo/in" remedy for !arrenessin pri


40/204

!reeders had tro-!le fi"-rin" o-t /hat an ideal animal sho-ld !e like.EG1FH hese fre'-ently reiteratedstandards meant that the inferiority of the offsprin" of illAconsidered pairin"s /o-ld sooner or later!ecome o!vio-sperhaps at !irth, !-t certainly !y the time they reached mat-rity. )n addition,!reedin" /as an e+pensive p-rs-ita!sol-tely e+pensive in the case of the lar"er animals, /hich co-ldcost

0#

h-ndreds and even tho-sands of po-nds to p-rchase and then to maintain in an appropriate style, andrelatively e+pensive in the case of the smaller ones. 2ny pre"nancy risked the life of the mother, andeach s-ccessf-l pre"nancy cons-med a si"nificant portion of her reprod-ctive potential. =/ners ofval-a!le female animals had to e+pend this limited reso-rce very caref-lly.

)n the co-rse of the ei"hteenth and nineteenth cent-ries, the e+pertise of !reeders prod-ced someimpressive res-lts. Dhis seems tr-e even tho-"h recent historians have pers-asively modified the moste+trava"ant claims made !y participants in the 2"ric-lt-ral 7evol-tion and their s-!se'-ent admirers.EG1H he earlier and most cele!rated achievement of 8n"lish animal !reedin" /as the modernthoro-"h!red racehorse, /hich appeared to/ard the !e"innin" of the ei"hteenth cent-ry as the res-lt ofan inf-sion of 2ra!ian !lood into native 8n"lish e'-ine stock. he merit of s-ch horses /as easilymeas-red on the track. By the middle of the ei"hteenth cent-ry, a"ric-lt-ralists /ere applyin" thetechni'-es developed !y racehorse !reeders to farm livestock, /ith conse'-ent impressive increases inthe si


41/204

*hen their disc-ssions of animal !reedin" !ecame more specific, ho/ever, the e+perts tended toretreat from their assertive selfAconfidence. @either method or kno/led"e, even /hen operatin" on catsof impecca!le pedi"ree and ro!-st health, co-ld ass-re anythin" like certainty, accordin" to thee+pert 3-st cited.G1%H Man-als for !reeders of cattle, sheep, and horses often /arned novices not toattempt to prod-ce the kinds of animals that /on pri


42/204

/ere divided a!o-t /hether that seed /as contri!-ted !y the male or the female. 2nimal !reeders,ho/ever, /ere of one mind a!o-t this '-estion. Many, like the a-thor of the0arrier and $aturalistarticle '-oted earlier, defined the female parent as a mere receptacle. =ne e+pert, faced /ith e+plainin"/hy, in this case, it /as not an easy thin" to prod-ce at once very perfect animals, provided that malesof the ri"ht form co-ld !e o!tained, preferred not to posit the mother as a si"nificant so-rce ofvariation. )nstead, he had reco-rse to the fact that the offsprin" /ill, to a "reater or lesser e+tent,

partake of the form and str-ct-re of the "randparents Gi.e., the "randfathersH. 2nd even if s-ch ana!sol-te assertion of male dominance needed modification in vie/ of the o!vio-s tendency of yo-n"animals to resem!le !oth their parents, !reedin" e+perts still reserved the more vi"oro-s "enetic rolefor the st-d. he ima"ery of activity and passivity remained -sef-l in the modified case it s-""ested,for e+ample that the male "ives the locomotive, and the female the vital or"ans.G&&H

he preponderance of male infl-ence never escaped the attention of /riters on these s-!3ects for lon",even if they had !een momentarily diverted !y the need to comment on females. (or e+ample, areminder that /itho-t first class females the descendants /ill not shine . . . in the

0L

sho/ yard /as predicta!ly accompanied !y the ackno/led"ment that it m-st not !e for"otten that themale has most infl-ence in !reedin".GH he only sit-ations in /hich it /as "enerally considered thatthe female mi"ht disproportionately determine the res-lts of procreation /ere those /hich introd-ced adifferent, and also po/erf-l, c-lt-ral constr-ct. Social s-perioritythat is, the terms of animalh-s!andry, a more distin"-ished pedi"reemi"ht tip the scales in the direction of the female. 2sIo-att pointed o-t, the infl-ence of a hi"hly !red co/ /ill preponderate over that of the halfA!red!-ll.G&FH Since s-ch e+ceptional circ-mstances co-ld only res-lt from e+treme ne"li"ence ori"norance on the part of the !reeder, ho/ever, they did not have to !e incorporated into receive/isdom. )n "eneral, !reeders /ere advised to proceed on the ass-mption that not only . . . is the maleparent . . . cpa!le of most speedily improved the !reed of livestock . . ., !-t . . . the male is the #arent,from motives of sense and so-nd polity, /hich /e can alone look to for the improvement of o-r!reed.G&H

Perhaps it /as to maintain this stron" differentation in reprod-ctive roles that cattle sho/ 3-d"es /eread3-red to assess !-lls as males and not as females and co/s as females and not as males. hetelltale si"ns /ere admittedly diffic-lt for even firstAclass 3-d"es to detectnot the o!vio-s thin"s !-ts-!tle variations in s-ch -nlikely feat-res as the conformation of head and horns. B-t the stakes /ereconsidered hi"h eno-"h to 3-stify the tro-!le, especially /here !-lls /ere concerned. 2ccordin" to oneveteran cattle !reeder, effeminacy in the male m-st !e sh-nned as the most deadly poison.G&LH

he principles that "-ided the prod-ction of livestock animals /ere ro-tinely applied to pet species.he a-thor of a late Citorian cat !reedin" man-al ass-red his readers that the o-t/ard characteristicsare in "reat meas-re transmitted !y the male cat.G&0H @or did the advance of !iolo"ical kno/led"e

necessarily shake the faith of animal !reeders in their timeAtested principles. )nstead, as it !ecameavaila!le, the 3ar"on of science co-ld !e appropriated to the service of the conventional -nderstandin"of animal reprod-ction. 8verett Millais, one of the most prominent do" fanciers of the late nineteenthcent-ry, translated it into the ne/ terminolo"y as follo/s: that the male . . . does infl-ence theepi!lastic and meso!lastic str-ct-res lar"ely, and all o-t of proportion to the female is -ndo-!ted.G&%H

So po/erf-l /as the infl-ence attri!-ted to at least some males, it /as even !elieved that they co-lddetermine the character of offsprin" in the conception of /hich they had had no part. hat is, theymi"ht "ain access to the reprod-ctive or"ans thro-"h the eyes of receptive females, as /ell as in the


43/204

ordinary /ay. 2s a res-lt, !reeders an+io-s to preserve the p-rity and the '-ality of their stock had to"-ard the minds as /ell as

00

the !odies of their impressiona!le female animals from s-ch -ndesira!le approaches. )t /ent /itho-t

sayin" that females /o-ld !e !oth -na!le and disinclined to resist them. )n short, females co-ld not !etr-sted /ith the preservation of their o/n virt-e, even on the level of ima"ination. Mr. M-stard4s co/,referred to earlier, offered an e+treme e+ample of the feminine s-scepti!ility posited !y this vie/ ofrelations !et/een the se+es. he offA!reed o+ that 3-mped into her past-re /hen she /as in heat /asnot even completely malethat is, he had !een castrated and therefore rendered incapa!le ofprocreation!-t, even so, he apparently left this make on the calf she s-!se'-ently conceived afterinterco-rse /ith the properly pedi"reed !-ll selected !y her o/ner.

)f females of a relatively stolid species /ere so s-scepti!le to the infl-ence of random males, it /as nots-rprisin" that female do"s, /hich /ere considered !oth more intelli"ent and more e+cita!le, had to !e"-arded still more closely. Breeders a"reed that the animals they termed maiden !itches /erepartic-larly v-lnera!le to s-ch e+ternal stim-li and advised that d-e infl-ence sho-ld !e e+ercised inthe thoro-"h isolation of !itches . . . or more than a temporary evil and disappointment may occ-r.G&9HB-t more e+perienced !itches /ere also at risk, and !e"innin" !reeders /ere /arned that even veryclose intimacy !et/een a !itch d-rin" oestr-m and a do" she fancies may infl-ence the pro"eny,altho-"h the do" has not /arded her.G#$H

he str-""les !et/een !itches and !reeders /ere descri!ed in terms that evoked st-!!orn da-"hters inromantic narratives /ho ref-sed to accept their fathers4 choice of s-itors. -"h 5alictorian do" !reeds, once o/ned a 5andie 5inmont terrier /hose /ay/ardemotions made her -seless for !reedin" she !ecame enamo-red /ith a deerho-nd, and positively/o-ld not s-!mit to !e served !y a do" of her o/n !reed. 8ven !itches /ho /ere more compliantmi"ht defeat their o/ners4 p-rposes. 5ela!ere Blaine, sometimes kno/n as the father of canine

patholo"y, had a p-" !itch /hose constant companion /as a /hite spaniel. 2ll her litters /ere sired !ypedi"reed p-"s, and all consisted of -ndenia!ly p-" p-ppies, !-t one in each !atch /as /hite, a colorthat /as rare and not desira!le in that !reed.G#1H

7eco"ni


44/204

phenomenon, /hich /as diffic-lt to verify, many !reeders contin-ed to !elieve in /hat /as -s-allycalled the infl-ence of the previo-s sire !-t /as sometimes di"nified !y the scientificAso-ndin" termtele"ony.G##H he midcent-ry a-thor of a scientific treatise on a"ric-lt-re s-mmari


45/204

into action. e noted /ith some satisfaction, ho/ever, that overse+ed !itches mi"ht pay for theirfail-re to prefer refinement to !r-te stren"th many died /hile !rin"in" forth tooAlar"e p-ppies.G#9H

2ccordin" to other a-thorities, ho/ever, this -nmatronly !ehavior mi"ht harm the offsprin" rather thanthe mother. )n the do", as in some other animals that ro-tinely "ive !irth to m-ltiple offsprin", it ispossi!le for a sin"le litter to have more than one father. Breedin" a-thorities referred to thisphenomenon as 4s-perfoetation, a technical term that made it so-nd like an a!erration or a disease. 2s

even the possi!ility of this occ-rrence /o-ld 3eopardi


46/204

species. Some cate"ories of females /ere vie/ed /ith special s-spicison. (or e+amA

%1

ple, !itches of the lar"er !reeds, /hose physical endo/ments commanded respect /hether or not they/ere feelin" refractory, had to !e taped or m-


47/204

itself, and reprod-cin" itself. 2s Jac'-es Monod has e+plained:

. . . he entire system is totally, intensely conservative, locked into itself, -tterly impervio-sto any hints from the o-tside /orld. hro-"h its properties, !y the microscopic clock/orkf-nction that esta!lishes !et/een 5@2 and protein, as !et/een or"anism and medi-m, anentirely oneA/ay relationship, this system o!vio-sly defies any dialectical description. )tis not e"elian at all, !-t thoro-"hly Cartesian: the cell is indeed a machine. D11$Q111E

he p-rposethe sole p-rposeof this machine is its o/n s-rvival and reprod-ction, or perhaps moreacc-rately p-t, the s-rvival and reprod-ction of the 5@2 pro"rammin" and dictatin" its operation. )n7ichard 5a/kins4s terms, an or"anism is a s-rvival machine, a l-m!erin" ro!ot constr-ctin" toho-se its "enes, those en"ines of selfApreserA

%L

vation that have as their primary property that of !ein" inherently selfish. hey are sealed off fromthe o-tside /orld, comm-nicatin" /ith it !y tort-o-s indirect ro-tes, manip-latin" it !y remote control.hey are in yo- and in me they created -s, !ody and mind and their preservation is the -ltimate

rationale for o-r e+istence D&1E. *ith this description, man himself has !ecome a machine, !-t perhapsit mi"ht alternatively !e said that the machine itself has !ecome man.

he "eneral '-estion is this: o /hat e+tent can o-r contemporary scientific descrption of animateforms, c-lminatin" in the description of man as a chemical machine, !e said to !e strictly technical, andto /hat e+tent does it act-ally encode partic-lar conceptions of manconceptions that derive not som-ch from a technical domain as from a social, political, and even psycholo"ical domainK aveanimate, even h-man, forms finally !een s-ccessf-lly deanimated and mechani


48/204

%0

ass-med to !e necessary are in fact contin"ent, dra/n not from nat-re !-t from o-r o/n social andpsychosocial herita"e. More specifically, ) /ill ar"-e that m-ch of contemporary evol-tionary theoryrelies on a representation of the individ-al!e it the or"anism or the "enethat is cast in thepartic-lar ima"e of man /e mi"ht call the o!!esian man: sim-ltaneo-sly a-tonomo-s andoppositional, connected to the /orld in /hich it finds itself not !y the promise of life and "ro/th !-t

primarily !y the threat of death and loss, its first and foremost need !ein" the defense of its !o-ndaries.)n psycholo"ical terms, /e mi"ht say that s-ch an individ-al !etrays an ideali


49/204

solit-de D10#E. he nat-ral /orld from /hich animism has !een so caref-lly e+p-n"ed has !ecome not'-ite ne-tral !-t empty, fro


50/204

interest and competition is less o!vio-s to most of -s than the difference !et/een impersonality innat-re and hostility, the pro!lem here is m-ch more diffic-lt. )n other /ords, !efore /e can invoke apsychosocial e+planation of the concept-al conflation !et/een radical individ-alism and competition,/e need first toseethem as different.

*e can do this !est !y t-rnin" o-r attention from a prescriptive disco-rse that aims to set "ro-nd r-lesfor evol-tionary theory to an e+amination of -ses of the same lan"-a"e in the act-al /orkin" o-t of

partic-lar theoretical strate"ies. ) /ant to look, therefore, at the technical -ses of the lan"-a"e ofindivid-alism in mathematical ecolo"y and pop-lation "eneticsin the first case, on the lan"-a"e ofcompetition, and, in the second, on the lan"-a"e of reprod-ctive a-tonomy. )n partic-lar, ) /ant tosho/ ho/ certain conventional interchan"es, or tradeAoffs, !et/een to sho/ ho/ certain conventionalinterchan"es, or tradeAoffs, !et/een technical and collo'-ial lan"-a"e cast a !lanket of invisi!ility, orrather, of -nspeaka!ility, over certain distinctions, cate"ories, and '-estions. )t is, ) s-""est, preciselythro-"h the maintenance of s-ch an a-ra of -nspeaka!ility that social, psycholo"ical, and politicale+pectations

9$

"enerally e+ert their infl-ence, thro-"h lan"-a"e, on the act-al str-ct-re and content of scientifictheory.

!om6etition and !oo6eration in Mathemati0a* E0o*o(y

=ne pro!lem ) /ant to e+amine arises in the systematic ne"lect of cooperative Dor m-t-laistEinteractions and the correspondi" privile"in" of competitive interactions evident thro-"ho-t almost theentire history of mathematical ecolo"y. *hen /e ask practitioners in the field for an e+planation of thishistorical disinterest in m-t-alist interactions, their response is -s-ally one of p-


51/204

char"e of ideolo"ically laden e+pectations a!o-t D-s-ally animalE !ehavior, in fact freein" the disco-rseof any depenA

91

dence on ho/ or"anisms act-ally !ehave in the face of scarcity. he term com#etitionno/ covered

apparently pacific !ehavior 3-st as /ell as a""ressive !ehavior, an a!s-rdity in ordinary -sa"e !-tprotected !y the stip-lation of a technical meanin". 2s 8rnst Mayr e+plains,

o certain a-thors eve since G5ar/inH, competition has meant physical com!at, and,coversely, the a!sence of physical com!at has !een taken as an indication of the a!sence ofcompetition. S-ch a vie/ is erroneo-s. . . . he relatively rarity of overt manifestations ofcompetition is proof not of the insi"nificance of competition, as asserted !y some a-thors,!-t, on the contrary, of the hi"h premi-m nat-ral selection pays for the development ofha!its or preferences that red-ce the severity of competition. D19L#: F&QF#E

Pa-l Colinva-+ "oes one step farther, s-""estin" that peacef-l coe+istence provides a !etterdescription than any talk of str-""les for s-rvival. @at-ral selection desi"ns different kinds of

animals and plants so that the a6oidcompetition. 2 fit animal is not one that fi"hts /ell, !-t one thatavoids fi"htin" alto"ether D190%: 1FFE.

B-t ho/ ne-tral in practice is the ostensi!ly technical -se of competition employed !oth !y Mayr andColinva-+K ) s-""est t/o /ays in /hich, rather than !ypassin" ideolo"ical e+pectations, it act-allypreserves them, al!eit in a less visi!le forma form in /hich they en3oy effective imm-nity fromcriticism. so as not to !e ca-"ht in the very trap ) /ant to e+pose, let me henceforth denote competitionin the technical sense as Competition and in the collo'-ial sense Dof act-al contestE as competition.

he first /ay is relatively strai"htfor/ard. he -se of a term /ith esta!lished collo'-ial meanin" in atechnical conte+t permits the sim-ltaneo-s transfer and denial of its collo'-ial connotations. ;et meoffer 3-st one e+ample: Colinva-+4s o/n description of a-se4s ori"inal e+periments that /ere desi"ned

to st-dy the effect of scarcity on interspecific dynamicshistorically, the e+perimental -nderpinnin" ofthe competitive e+cl-sion coe+istence. e /rites,

@o matter ho/ many times a-se tested Gthe parameciaH a"ainst each other, the o-tcome/as al/ays the same, complete e+termination of one species. . . . a-se co-ld see thisdeadly str-""le "oin" on !efore his eyes day after day and al/ays /ith the sameo-tcome. . . . /hat /e Gmi"ht haveH e+pected to !e a permanent str-""lin" !alance in fact!ecame a po"rom. D1F&E

J-st to set the record strai"ht, these are not killer paramecia !-t perfectly ordinary parameciamindin" their o/n !-siness, eatin" and dividin", or not, perhaps even starvin". he termsetermination, deadly struggle, and#rogramrefer merely to the sim-ltaneo-s dependence of t/ospecies on a common reso-rce. )f, !y chance, yo- sho-ld have misinterA

9&

preted and taken them literally, to refer to overt com!at, yo- /o-ld !e told that yo- had missed thepoint. he ;otkaA>olterra e'-ations make no s-ch claims strictly speakin", they are incompati!le /ithan ass-mption of overt com!at the competitive e+cl-sion principle merely implies an avoidance ofconflict. 2nd yet the description of s-ch a sit-ation, only competitive in the technical sense, slipssmoothly from Competition to "enocidem-ch as /e sa/ o-r neoAennysonians slip from


52/204

inpersonality to heartless re3ection.

he point of this e+ample is not to sin"le o-t Colinva-+ D/hich /o-ld s-rely !e -nfairE !-t to providean ill-stration of /hat is, in fact, a rather /idespread investment of an ostensi!ly ne-tral technical term/ith a '-ite different set of connotations associated /ith its collo'-ial meanin". he collo'-ialconnotations lead pla-si!ly to one set of inferences and close off others, /hile the technical meanin"stands ready to disclaim responsi!ility if challen"ed.GFH

he second and more serio-s ro-te !y /hich the apparently a priori stat-s of competition is sec-red can!e e+plored thro-"h an in'-iry into the implicit ass-mptions a!o-t reso-rce cons-mption that are herepres-pposed and the aspects of reso-rce cons-mptions that are e+cl-ded. he first pres-pposition isthat a reso-rce can !e defined and '-antitatively assessed independent of the or"anism itself and thesecond is that each or"anism4s -tili


53/204

-tili


54/204

mistakeE have done little to stem the -nderlyin" conviction that the t/o are someho/ the same. )n arecent attempt to define the lo"ical essence of the 5ar/inian dynamic, Bernstein et al. D19%#E freelytranslate 5ar/in4s

9

str-""le for s-rvival to competition thro-"h reso-rce limitation D19&E, there!y claimin" forcompetition the stat-s of a !asic component of nat-ral selection. 8ven more recently, eor"e*illiams D19%LE descri!es a classic e+ample of nat-ral selection in the la!oratory as a competitione+periment, a contest !et/een a m-tant and normal allele, in /hich he cites differential fec-ndity asan e+ample of the competitive interactions amon" individ-al or"anisms that ca-se the relativeincrease in one pop-lation D11FQ11E.

2t iss-e is not /hether overtly competitive !ehavior or more !asic ecolo"ical scarcity is the r-le in thenat-ral /orld rather, it is /hether or not s-ch a '-estion can even !e asked. o the e+tent thatdistinctions !et/een competition and scarcity, on the one hand, and !et/een scarcity and nat-ralselection, on the other, are o!literated from o-r lan"-a"e and tho-"ht, the '-estion itself !ecomesforeclosed. 2s lon" as the theory of nat-ral selection is -nderstood as a theory of competition,confirmation of one is taken to !e confirmation of the other, despite their lo"ical Dand !iolo"icalEdifference.

*hile this clearly raises pro!lems a!o-t the meanin" of confirmation, my principal concern is /ith thedynamics !y /hich s-ch an oversi"ht or conf-sion is s-stained in the theory and practice of /orkin"!iolo"ists/ith the internal conventions that render it effectively resistant to correction. 5ynamicssimilar to those in the lan"-a"e of competition can also !e seen in the lan"-a"e of reprod-ctivea-tonomy, especially as employed in the theory and practice of pop-lation !iolo"y.

The $rob*em of Se5ua* Re6orodu0tion

)n m-ch of the disco-rse on reprod-ction, it is common to speak of the reprod-ction of anor"anismas if reprod-ction is somethin" an individ-al or"anism does as if an or"anism makescopies of itself, !y itself. Strictly speakin", of co-rse, s-ch lan"-a"e is appropriate only to ase+-allyreprod-cin" pop-lations since, as every !iolo"ist kno/s, se+-ally reprod-cin" or"anisms neitherprod-ce copies of themselves nor prod-ce other or"anisms !y themselves. )t is a strikin" fact, ho/ever,that the lan"-a"e of individ-al reprod-ction, incl-din" s-ch correlative terms as an indi6idualsoffs#ringand lineage, is -sed thro-"ho-t pop-lation !iolo"yG%H to apply indiscriminately to !othse+-ally and ase+-ally reprod-cin" pop-lations. *hile it /o-ld !e a!s-rd to s-""est hat -sers of s-chlan"-a"e are act-ally conf-sed a!o-t the nat-re of reprod-ction in the or"anisms they st-dy De.".,calc-lations of n-m!ers of offsprin" per or"anism are al/ays appropriately ad3-sted to take the modeof reprod-ction into acco-ntE, /e mi"ht nonetheless ask, /hat f-nctions, !oth positive and ne"ative,

does s-ch manifestly pec-liar lan"-a"e

9L

serveK 2nd /hat conse'-ences does it have for the shape of the theory in /hich it is em!eddedK

) /ant to s-""est, first, that this lan"-a"e, far from !ein" inconse'-ential, provides cr-cial concept-als-pport for the individ-alist pro"ram in evol-tionary theory. )n partic-lar, my claim is that the startin"ass-mption of this pro"ramthat is, that individ-al properties are primarydepends on the lan"-a"eof individ-al reprod-ction for its !asic credi!ility.G9H )n addition, ) /o-ld ar"-e that, 3-st as /e sa/


55/204

/ith the lan"-a"e of competition, the lan"-a"e of individ-al reprod-ction, maintained as it is !y certainmethodolo"ical conventions, !oth !locks the perception of pro!lems in the evol-tionary pro3ect aspresently cond-cted and, sim-ltaneo-sly, impedes efforts to redress those diffic-lties that can !eidentified.

he pro!lems posed for evol-tionary theory !y se+-al reprod-ction and Mendelian "enetics are hardlyne/, and indeed, the !asic theory of pop-lation "enetics ori"inates in the form-lation of a partic-lar

method Di.e., the ardyA*ein!er" calc-l-sE desi"ned to solve these pro!lems. he ardyA*ein!er"calc-l-s Doften referred to as !eanA!a" "eneticsE invoked an i!vio-sly hi"hly ideali


56/204

he more o!vio-s cost of this circle s-rely comes from its second part. 2s a n-m!er of a-thors haverecently !e"-n to remind -s, the e'-ation !et/een nat-ral selection and differential s-rvival fosters!oth the theoretical omission and the e+perimental ne"lect of a cr-cial component of nat-ral selection.Perhaps even more serio-s is the cost in -nresolved diffic-lties that this e'-ation has helped o!sc-re.

=ne s-ch diffic-lty is the persistence of a chronic conf-sion !et/een t/o definitions of individ-alfitness: one, the Davera"eE net contri!-tion of an individ-al of a partic-lar "enotype to the ne+t

"eneration, and the other, the "eometric rate of increase of that partic-lar "enotype. he first refers tothe contri!-tion an individ-al makes to reprod-ction, /hile the second refers to the rate of prod-ctionof individ-als. )n other /ords, the first definition refers to the role of the individ-al as s-!3ect ofreprod-ction and the second to its role as o!3ect. he disparity !et/een the t/o derives from the !asicfact that, for se+-ally reprod-cin" or"anisms, the rate at /hich individ-als of a partic-lar "enotype are!orn is a f-ndamentally different '-antity from the rate at /hich individ-als of

9%

that "enotype "ive !irtha distinction easily lost in a lan"-a"e that assi"ns that same term, "irthrate,to !oth processes.

Be"innin" in 19L&, a n-m!er of a-thors have attempted to call attention to this conf-sion DMoran 19L&Charle/sorth 190$ Pollak and 6empthorne 1901 5enniston 190%E, a"reein" that one definitionthecontri!-tion a partic-lar "enotype makes to the ne+t "eneration4s pop-lationis !oth conventional andcorrect, /hile the other Dthe rate at /hich individ-als of a partic-lar "enotype are !ornE is not. 5espitetheir efforts, ho/ever, the conf-sion persists.G11H )n part, this is !eca-se there remains a real '-estionas to /hat correct means in this conte+t or more precisely, as to /hich definition is !etter s-ited tothe needs that the concept of fitness is intended to servein partic-lar, the need to e+plain chan"es inthe "enotypic composition of pop-lations. iven that need, /e /ant to kno/ not only /hich "enotypesprod-ce more !-t also the relative rate of increase of a partic-lar "enotype over the co-rse of"enerations.

@ot s-rprisin"ly, conflation of the t/o definitions of fitness is partic-larly likely to occ-r in attempts toesta!lish a formal connection !et/een the models of pop-lation "enetics and those of mathematicalecolo"y. Beca-se all the standards models for pop-lation "ro/th ass-me ase+-al reprod-ction, the t/oformalisms act-ally refer to t/o completely different kinds of pop-lations: one of "ametic pools andthe other of ase+-ally reprod-cin" or"anisms. )n attemptin" to reconcile these t/o theories, s-ch aconflation is in fact re'-ire to finesse the lo"ical "ap !et/een them. 2 more ade'-ate reconciliation ofthe t/o formalisms re'-ires the introd-ction of !oth the dynamics of se+-al reprod-ction intomathematical ecolo"y and a compati!le representation of those dynamics into pop-lation "enetics.

Co-nterint-itively, it is pro!a!ly the secondthe incl-sion Din pop-lation "enetics modelsE of fertilityas a property of the matin" typethat calls for the more s-!stantive concept-al shifts. =ver the last

t/enty years, /e have /itnessed the emer"ence of a considera!le literat-re devoted to the analysis offertility selectioneadin" at least some a-thors to the concl-sion that the classical concept ofindivid-al fitness is ins-fficient to acco-nt for the action of nat-ral selection DChristiansen 19%#: 0E.

he !asic point is that /hen fertility selection isincl-ded in nat-ral selection, the fitness of a "enotype,like the fitness of a "ene Das ar"-ed !y So!er and ;e/ontin 19%&E, is seen to depend on the conte+t in/hich it finds itself. @o/, ho/ever, the conte+t is one determined !y the "enotype of the matin"partner rather than !y the complementary allele. 2 cas-al readin" of the literat-re on fertility selectionmi"ht s-""est that the matin" pair /o-ld !e a more appropriate -nit of selection than the


57/204

99

individ-al, !-t the fact is that matin" pairs do not reprod-ce themselves any more than do individ-al"enotypes. 2s 8. Pollak has pointed o-t, even if a s-perior matin" prod-ces offsprin" /ith a potentialfor enterin" a s-perior matin", the reali


58/204

Birch, ;. C. Meanin"s of Competition.American naturalist91 D190E: A1%.

Bo-cher, 5o-"las. The Biology of Mutualism.Cam!rid"e: =+ford University Press, 19%.

Charles/orth, B. Selection in Pop-lations /ith =verlappin" enerations. 1: he Use of Malth-sianParameters in Pop-lation enetics, Theoretical (o#ulation Biology1, # D190$E: #&A#0$.

Christiansen, (.B. he 5efinition and Meas-rement of (itness, in B. Shorrocks, ed.,-6olutionary

-cology: B. -. S. Sym#osium. =+ford and Boston: Black/ell Scientific P-!lications, 19%F. LA09.Colinva-+, Pa-l. %hy Big 0iere Animals are 1are.Princeton: Princet

The Boundaries of Humanity

Documents

Transcript of The Boundaries of Humanity