Review: Alas, Poor Darwin: arguments against evolutionary psychology by Steven and Hilary Rose

Submitted by Anon on 30 September, 2001 - 12:22

Alas, Poor Darwin, assembling articles from biologists, sociologists and others, takes exception to the excessive claims of evolutionary theory (EP) — the theory that human behaviour must be understood in terms of adaptations caused by natural selection (so that we are, basically, palaeolithic hunter-gatherers).

Geneticist Gabriel Dover swiftly dispatches the gene-centred version of evolution put forward by Richard Dawkins. Stephen Jay Gould defends himself from the “slurs and sneers” of American philosopher Daniel Dennett in his book Darwin’s Dangerous Idea. Anne Fausto-Sterling gives a feminist response to EP (which stresses incessantly the evolutionary origins of differences between men and women, locating them in “reproductive strategies”). Ted Benton puts contemporary debates in a historical setting, with some fascinating quotations from Alfred Russel Wallace, Darwin’s co-founder of the theory of natural selection, and a socialist and proto-feminist.

The discussion is wide-ranging, not least, as the editors note, because there is more than one target: EP and behavioural genetics are slightly at odds with each other (the one stressing human “universals”, the other concerned with differences between individuals). To anyone new to the numerous subjects, this plethora of issues is no doubt daunting, but it makes for a rich discussion.

There are differences between the views offered here, and some are more interesting than others, but a central thought emerges which is important and well-made. The disclaimers of the evolutionary psychologists and, more generally, of those who want to emphasise biological evolution as the cause of social pattterns — their tendency to dismiss their critics as bewildering nitpickers or unreconstructed “environmental determinists” — blurs the fact is that their supposed insights into human behaviour are offered as indicators for social policy.
They concede complexity of causation, the fact that DNA is both complicated and still largely mysterious, and so on, but their headline arguments enter popular culture shorn of caveat.

I’m sure the advocates of EP, the “selfish gene”, etc, will think they have been, in turn, caricatured and unfairly attacked — and they would, I think, on occasion be justified. But these essays at least demand a serious response.

In a sense there is an emerging common ground. As Stephen Jay Gould says in his essay, there are insights provided by EP which could be fruitful, if its advocates were a bit more laid back and cautious. Marek Kohns excellent recent book, As We Know It, attempts to rescue EP from the political right; Chris Knight’s Blood Relations draws on EP to make some intriguing speculations about the origins of culture. A greater creative engagement with EP, rather than pure dismissal of it, is in order.

Commenting that it is perfectly reasonable to investigate evolutionary factors in human nature, Steven Rose then rightly adds: “The problem with [EP] is that... it offers a false unification [of the levels of analysis] pursued with deological zeal.” (p247)

Thus these essays remain, on the whole, concerned with providing ammunition against the enemy. For this reason, I suspect Alas, Poor Darwin will prove invaluable for social scientists who hadn’t noticed EP creeping up on them and have suddenly found themselves ambushed.

Edward Ellis

This website uses cookies, you can find out more and set your preferences here.
By continuing to use this website, you agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms & Conditions.