Selfish Gene Mythology
06/06/11 17:46 Filed in: Human Nature
Richard Dawkins published The Selfish Gene back in 1976, and since then, over a million copies have been sold. Dawkins defends the idea that the unit of evolution, of natural selection, is, not the the group or the individual life-form, but the gene. Genes perpetuate themselves and do everything they can to secure their survival, and he calls such behavior selfish. The idea here is that genes compete against rivals and do what they can to make sure that they survive which often means that their rivals do not survive.
What I want to point out in this post is that Dawkins made a particular choice. He chose to use the word selfish to describe the activities of his genes, and that choice tells us two things. First, he tell us that Dawkins prioritized some types of behaviors over others in picking out his unit of natural selection and, second, that Dawkins thought it was "selfishness" is important for Dawkins.
We can easily question the first issue. For Dawkins, what is important is that some entities survive and some do not, that those two types of entities are rivals, or in competition, and that the ones who survive act to preserve themselves at all costs. This account presents what Mary Midgley rightly calls a mythology. The mythology of selfishness of genes, that nature is "red in tooth and claw" and that all of life is about "survival of the fittest" has proven very influential in the modern world, as evidenced both by the number of sales that Dawkins' book generated and also by the spin-off of Dawkins' work in the form of evolutionary psychology. What myths do is take facts and try to present an over-arching story about those facts.
Dawkins has done this for facts about evolution and about survival.
The thing about myths is that they often ignore experience that does not agree with the over-arching mythology and rests on points that it tries to sweep under the carpet. To wit, Dawkins divides the world into selfish entities and altruistic entities. Yet, he completely ignores cooperation. In fact, Dawkins' genes are able to create "survival machines" only because they cooperate with each other to produce such an entity. To explain this in terms of selfish acts/behaviors/choices masks something because cooperation need not be, and often is not, selfish in origin.
This point should give us a pause in how we understand, not only Dawkins' work and popularity, but how we understand evolution and science. We often think of science as "just the facts, ma'am." In fact, however, science, just like every other aspect of life, comes with a slant, which does not mean it isn't true. Just the opposite. But we need to be aware both of that slant and how the slant of science can skew our vision of the world and what we expect from it.
What I want to point out in this post is that Dawkins made a particular choice. He chose to use the word selfish to describe the activities of his genes, and that choice tells us two things. First, he tell us that Dawkins prioritized some types of behaviors over others in picking out his unit of natural selection and, second, that Dawkins thought it was "selfishness" is important for Dawkins.
We can easily question the first issue. For Dawkins, what is important is that some entities survive and some do not, that those two types of entities are rivals, or in competition, and that the ones who survive act to preserve themselves at all costs. This account presents what Mary Midgley rightly calls a mythology. The mythology of selfishness of genes, that nature is "red in tooth and claw" and that all of life is about "survival of the fittest" has proven very influential in the modern world, as evidenced both by the number of sales that Dawkins' book generated and also by the spin-off of Dawkins' work in the form of evolutionary psychology. What myths do is take facts and try to present an over-arching story about those facts.
Dawkins has done this for facts about evolution and about survival.
The thing about myths is that they often ignore experience that does not agree with the over-arching mythology and rests on points that it tries to sweep under the carpet. To wit, Dawkins divides the world into selfish entities and altruistic entities. Yet, he completely ignores cooperation. In fact, Dawkins' genes are able to create "survival machines" only because they cooperate with each other to produce such an entity. To explain this in terms of selfish acts/behaviors/choices masks something because cooperation need not be, and often is not, selfish in origin.
This point should give us a pause in how we understand, not only Dawkins' work and popularity, but how we understand evolution and science. We often think of science as "just the facts, ma'am." In fact, however, science, just like every other aspect of life, comes with a slant, which does not mean it isn't true. Just the opposite. But we need to be aware both of that slant and how the slant of science can skew our vision of the world and what we expect from it.
Comments