Hindu article criticising use of genetics to promote and justify selfish behaviour in human society
Before I get to the article I need to provide some introductory info.
From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberalism:
Neoliberalism (neo-liberalism) refers primarily to the 20th century resurgence of 19th century ideas associated with laissez-faire economic liberalism. These include extensive economic liberalization policies such as privatization, fiscal austerity, deregulation, free trade, and reductions in government spending in order to enhance the role of the private sector in the economy. The implementation of neoliberal policies and the acceptance of neoliberal economic theories in the 1970s are seen by some academics as the root of financialization, with the financial crisis of 2007–08 as one of the ultimate results.
The term has been used since 1938 but became more prevalent in its current meaning in the 1970s and '80s by scholars in a wide variety of social sciences and critics. Advocates of Free Market policies avoid the term "neoliberal".
--- end neoliberalism wiki extract ---
From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Selfish_Gene:
The Selfish Gene is a 1976 book on evolution by Richard Dawkins, in which Dawkins builds upon the principal theory of George C. Williams's Adaptation and Natural Selection (1966). Dawkins uses the term "selfish gene" as a way of expressing the gene-centred view of evolution as opposed to the views focused on the organism and the group, popularising ideas developed during the 1960s by W. D. Hamilton and others. From the gene-centred view, it follows that the more two individuals are genetically related, the more sense (at the level of the genes) it makes for them to behave selflessly with each other.
A lineage is expected to evolve to maximise its inclusive fitness—the number of copies of its genes passed on globally (rather than by a particular individual). As a result, populations will tend towards an evolutionarily stable strategy. The book also coins the term meme for a unit of human cultural evolution analogous to the gene, suggesting that such "selfish" replication may also model human culture, in a different sense. Memetics has become the subject of many studies since the publication of the book. In raising awareness of the ideas of W. D. Hamilton, as well as making its own valuable contributions to the field, the book has also stimulated research on human inclusive fitness.
In the foreword to the book's 30th-anniversary edition, Dawkins said he "can readily see that [the book's title] might give an inadequate impression of its contents" and in retrospect thinks he should have taken Tom Maschler's advice and called the book The Immortal Gene.
...
Moral arguments
Another criticism of the book is its treatment of morality, and more particularly altruism, as existing only as a form of selfishness:
"It is important to realize that the above definitions of altruism and selfishness are behavioural, not subjective. I am not concerned here with the psychology of motives...My definition is concerned only with whether the effect of an act is to lower or raise the survival prospects of the presumed altruist and the survival prospects of the presumed beneficiary."
— Richard Dawkins, The Selfish Gene, p. 12
"We can even discuss ways of cultivating and nurturing pure, disinterested altruism, something that has no place in nature, something that has never existed before in the whole history of the world."
— Richard Dawkins, The Selfish Gene, p. 179
Philosopher Mary Midgley has suggested this position is a variant of Hobbes' explanation of altruism as enlightened self-interest, and that Dawkins goes a step further to suggest that our genetic programming can be overcome by what amounts to an extreme version of free will. Part of Mary Midgley's concern is that Richard Dawkins' account of The Selfish Gene serves as a moral and ideological justification for selfishness to be adopted by modern human societies as simply following "nature", providing an excuse for behavior with bad consequences for future human society.
Dawkins' major concluding theme, that humanity is finally gaining power over the "selfish replicators" by virtue of their intelligence, is criticized also by primatologist Frans de Waal, who refers to it as an example of a "veneer theory" (the idea that morality is not fundamental, but is laid over a brutal foundation). Dawkins claims he merely describes how things are under evolution, and makes no moral arguments. On BBC-2 TV, Dawkins pointed to evidence for a "Tit-for-Tat" strategy (shown to be successful in game theory) as the most common, simple, and profitable choice.
More generally, the objection has been made that The Selfish Gene discusses philosophical and moral questions that go beyond biological arguments, relying upon anthropomorphisms and careless analogies.
--- end The Selfish Gene wiki extracts ---
Ravi: Now for the article in today's (Oct. 7th 2016) The Hindu by an academic (of Indian origin) based in Denmark, Instinct is no excuse, http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/instinct-is-no-excuse/article9193573.ece by Tabish Khair. [From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tabish_Khair, "Tabish Khair (Hindi: ताबिश खैर) is an Indian English author and associate professor in the Department of English, University of Aarhus in Denmark. His books include Babu Fictions (2001), The Bus Stopped (2004), which was shortlisted for the Encore Award (UK) and The Thing About Thugs (2010), which has been shortlisted for a number of prizes, including the DSC Prize for South Asian Literature and the Man Asian Literary Prize."]
In the article, the author, Khair, argues against "the trend to use genetics or evolution to explain everything about human beings and their societies".
Khair quotes a book, The Gene: An Intimate History, by Siddhartha Mukherjee, "history, society and culture collide and intersect with genetics, like tides. Some waves cancel each other, while others reinforce each other. No force is particularly strong — but their combined effect produces the rippled landscape that we call an individual’s identity."
Khair mentions that Richard Dawkins, author of the influential 1976 book, The Selfish Gene, said that genes can be seen as selfish or altruistic depending on where one is looking from. I tried to verify that from Google search but was not able to get suitable quotes from Dawkins.
Khair suggests that the title of this 1976 influential book (The Selfish Gene) made selfishness cool, and perhaps helped in electing right-wing political leaders to top political office in USA (Reagan in 1981) and UK (Thatcher in 1979).
Khair writes, "Let alone the misleading metaphor of ‘selfhood’ attached to a bundle of chemicals in a cell, Mr. Dawkins’s book was read as suggesting biological compulsion. Selfishness defines us as human beings, the ascending neoliberals were shouting from every rooftop (and many still are) in the 1970s and 1980s. We are compelled to denude nature, pollute spaces, exploit other human beings, accumulate vast wealth in the midst of extreme poverty, etc. — because we are, ah, compulsively selfish."
In the concluding sentence of the article, Khair takes a shot at USA Republican nominee for president, Mr. Donald Trump, and attempts to tie him up with negative aspects of Khair's view of neoliberalism.
Please note that I have a PUBLICLY NEUTRAL informal-student-observer role with respect to USA presidential elections 2016. Of course, as I am an Indian citizen living in India, there is no question of me voting in these elections.
[I thank wikipedia and The Hindu and have presumed that they will not have any objections to me sharing the above extracts (short extract from The Hindu) from their websites on this post which is freely viewable by all, and does not have any financial profit motive whatsoever.]
From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberalism:
Neoliberalism (neo-liberalism) refers primarily to the 20th century resurgence of 19th century ideas associated with laissez-faire economic liberalism. These include extensive economic liberalization policies such as privatization, fiscal austerity, deregulation, free trade, and reductions in government spending in order to enhance the role of the private sector in the economy. The implementation of neoliberal policies and the acceptance of neoliberal economic theories in the 1970s are seen by some academics as the root of financialization, with the financial crisis of 2007–08 as one of the ultimate results.
The term has been used since 1938 but became more prevalent in its current meaning in the 1970s and '80s by scholars in a wide variety of social sciences and critics. Advocates of Free Market policies avoid the term "neoliberal".
--- end neoliberalism wiki extract ---
From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Selfish_Gene:
The Selfish Gene is a 1976 book on evolution by Richard Dawkins, in which Dawkins builds upon the principal theory of George C. Williams's Adaptation and Natural Selection (1966). Dawkins uses the term "selfish gene" as a way of expressing the gene-centred view of evolution as opposed to the views focused on the organism and the group, popularising ideas developed during the 1960s by W. D. Hamilton and others. From the gene-centred view, it follows that the more two individuals are genetically related, the more sense (at the level of the genes) it makes for them to behave selflessly with each other.
A lineage is expected to evolve to maximise its inclusive fitness—the number of copies of its genes passed on globally (rather than by a particular individual). As a result, populations will tend towards an evolutionarily stable strategy. The book also coins the term meme for a unit of human cultural evolution analogous to the gene, suggesting that such "selfish" replication may also model human culture, in a different sense. Memetics has become the subject of many studies since the publication of the book. In raising awareness of the ideas of W. D. Hamilton, as well as making its own valuable contributions to the field, the book has also stimulated research on human inclusive fitness.
In the foreword to the book's 30th-anniversary edition, Dawkins said he "can readily see that [the book's title] might give an inadequate impression of its contents" and in retrospect thinks he should have taken Tom Maschler's advice and called the book The Immortal Gene.
...
Moral arguments
Another criticism of the book is its treatment of morality, and more particularly altruism, as existing only as a form of selfishness:
"It is important to realize that the above definitions of altruism and selfishness are behavioural, not subjective. I am not concerned here with the psychology of motives...My definition is concerned only with whether the effect of an act is to lower or raise the survival prospects of the presumed altruist and the survival prospects of the presumed beneficiary."
— Richard Dawkins, The Selfish Gene, p. 12
"We can even discuss ways of cultivating and nurturing pure, disinterested altruism, something that has no place in nature, something that has never existed before in the whole history of the world."
— Richard Dawkins, The Selfish Gene, p. 179
Philosopher Mary Midgley has suggested this position is a variant of Hobbes' explanation of altruism as enlightened self-interest, and that Dawkins goes a step further to suggest that our genetic programming can be overcome by what amounts to an extreme version of free will. Part of Mary Midgley's concern is that Richard Dawkins' account of The Selfish Gene serves as a moral and ideological justification for selfishness to be adopted by modern human societies as simply following "nature", providing an excuse for behavior with bad consequences for future human society.
Dawkins' major concluding theme, that humanity is finally gaining power over the "selfish replicators" by virtue of their intelligence, is criticized also by primatologist Frans de Waal, who refers to it as an example of a "veneer theory" (the idea that morality is not fundamental, but is laid over a brutal foundation). Dawkins claims he merely describes how things are under evolution, and makes no moral arguments. On BBC-2 TV, Dawkins pointed to evidence for a "Tit-for-Tat" strategy (shown to be successful in game theory) as the most common, simple, and profitable choice.
More generally, the objection has been made that The Selfish Gene discusses philosophical and moral questions that go beyond biological arguments, relying upon anthropomorphisms and careless analogies.
--- end The Selfish Gene wiki extracts ---
Ravi: Now for the article in today's (Oct. 7th 2016) The Hindu by an academic (of Indian origin) based in Denmark, Instinct is no excuse, http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/instinct-is-no-excuse/article9193573.ece by Tabish Khair. [From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tabish_Khair, "Tabish Khair (Hindi: ताबिश खैर) is an Indian English author and associate professor in the Department of English, University of Aarhus in Denmark. His books include Babu Fictions (2001), The Bus Stopped (2004), which was shortlisted for the Encore Award (UK) and The Thing About Thugs (2010), which has been shortlisted for a number of prizes, including the DSC Prize for South Asian Literature and the Man Asian Literary Prize."]
In the article, the author, Khair, argues against "the trend to use genetics or evolution to explain everything about human beings and their societies".
Khair quotes a book, The Gene: An Intimate History, by Siddhartha Mukherjee, "history, society and culture collide and intersect with genetics, like tides. Some waves cancel each other, while others reinforce each other. No force is particularly strong — but their combined effect produces the rippled landscape that we call an individual’s identity."
Khair mentions that Richard Dawkins, author of the influential 1976 book, The Selfish Gene, said that genes can be seen as selfish or altruistic depending on where one is looking from. I tried to verify that from Google search but was not able to get suitable quotes from Dawkins.
Khair suggests that the title of this 1976 influential book (The Selfish Gene) made selfishness cool, and perhaps helped in electing right-wing political leaders to top political office in USA (Reagan in 1981) and UK (Thatcher in 1979).
Khair writes, "Let alone the misleading metaphor of ‘selfhood’ attached to a bundle of chemicals in a cell, Mr. Dawkins’s book was read as suggesting biological compulsion. Selfishness defines us as human beings, the ascending neoliberals were shouting from every rooftop (and many still are) in the 1970s and 1980s. We are compelled to denude nature, pollute spaces, exploit other human beings, accumulate vast wealth in the midst of extreme poverty, etc. — because we are, ah, compulsively selfish."
In the concluding sentence of the article, Khair takes a shot at USA Republican nominee for president, Mr. Donald Trump, and attempts to tie him up with negative aspects of Khair's view of neoliberalism.
Please note that I have a PUBLICLY NEUTRAL informal-student-observer role with respect to USA presidential elections 2016. Of course, as I am an Indian citizen living in India, there is no question of me voting in these elections.
[I thank wikipedia and The Hindu and have presumed that they will not have any objections to me sharing the above extracts (short extract from The Hindu) from their websites on this post which is freely viewable by all, and does not have any financial profit motive whatsoever.]
Comments
Post a Comment