Welcome to The Valve
Login
Register


Valve Links

The Front Page
Statement of Purpose

John Holbo - Editor
Scott Eric Kaufman - Editor
Aaron Bady
Adam Roberts
Amardeep Singh
Andrew Seal
Bill Benzon
Daniel Green
Jonathan Goodwin
Joseph Kugelmass
Lawrence LaRiviere White
Marc Bousquet
Matt Greenfield
Miriam Burstein
Ray Davis
Rohan Maitzen
Sean McCann
Guest Authors

Laura Carroll
Mark Bauerlein
Miriam Jones

Past Valve Book Events

cover of the book Theory's Empire

Event Archive

cover of the book The Literary Wittgenstein

Event Archive

cover of the book Graphs, Maps, Trees

Event Archive

cover of the book How Novels Think

Event Archive

cover of the book The Trouble With Diversity

Event Archive

cover of the book What's Liberal About the Liberal Arts?

Event Archive

cover of the book The Novel of Purpose

Event Archive

The Valve - Closed For Renovation

Happy Trails to You

What’s an Encyclopedia These Days?

Encyclopedia Britannica to Shut Down Print Operations

Intimate Enemies: What’s Opera, Doc?

Alphonso Lingis talks of various things, cameras and photos among them

Feynmann, John von Neumann, and Mental Models

Support Michael Sporn’s Film about Edgar Allen Poe

Philosophy, Ontics or Toothpaste for the Mind

Nazi Rules for Regulating Funk ‘n Freedom

The Early History of Modern Computing: A Brief Chronology

Computing Encounters Being, an Addendum

On the Origin of Objects (towards a philosophy of computation)

Symposium on Graeber’s Debt

The Nightmare of Digital Film Preservation

Richard Petti on Occupy Wall Street: America HAS a Ruling Class

Bill Benzon on Whatwhatwhatwhatwhatwhatwhat?

Nick J. on The Valve - Closed For Renovation

Bill Benzon on Encyclopedia Britannica to Shut Down Print Operations

Norma on Encyclopedia Britannica to Shut Down Print Operations

Bill Benzon on What’s an Object, Metaphysically Speaking?

john balwit on What’s an Object, Metaphysically Speaking?

William Ray on That Shakespeare Thing

Bill Benzon on That Shakespeare Thing

William Ray on That Shakespeare Thing

JoseAngel on That Shakespeare Thing

Bill Benzon on Objects and Graeber's Debt

Bill Benzon on A Dirty Dozen Sneaking up on the Apocalypse

JoseAngel on A Dirty Dozen Sneaking up on the Apocalypse

JoseAngel on Objects and Graeber's Debt

Advanced Search

Articles
RSS 1.0 | RSS 2.0 | Atom

Comments
RSS 1.0 | RSS 2.0 | Atom

XHTML | CSS

Powered by Expression Engine
Logo by John Holbo

Creative Commons Licence
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

 


Blogroll

2blowhards
About Last Night
Academic Splat
Acephalous
Amardeep Singh
Beatrice
Bemsha Swing
Bitch. Ph.D.
Blogenspiel
Blogging the Renaissance
Bookslut
Booksquare
Butterflies & Wheels
Cahiers de Corey
Category D
Charlotte Street
Cheeky Prof
Chekhov’s Mistress
Chrononautic Log
Cliopatria
Cogito, ergo Zoom
Collected Miscellany
Completely Futile
Confessions of an Idiosyncratic Mind
Conversational Reading
Critical Mass
Crooked Timber
Culture Cat
Culture Industry
CultureSpace
Early Modern Notes
Easily Distracted
fait accompi
Fernham
Ferule & Fescue
Ftrain
GalleyCat
Ghost in the Wire
Giornale Nuovo
God of the Machine
Golden Rule Jones
Grumpy Old Bookman
Ideas of Imperfection
Idiocentrism
Idiotprogrammer
if:book
In Favor of Thinking
In Medias Res
Inside Higher Ed
jane dark’s sugarhigh!
John & Belle Have A Blog
John Crowley
Jonathan Goodwin
Kathryn Cramer
Kitabkhana
Languagehat
Languor Management
Light Reading
Like Anna Karina’s Sweater
Lime Tree
Limited Inc.
Long Pauses
Long Story, Short Pier
Long Sunday
MadInkBeard
Making Light
Maud Newton
Michael Berube
Moo2
MoorishGirl
Motime Like the Present
Narrow Shore
Neil Gaiman
Old Hag
Open University
Pas au-delà
Philobiblion
Planned Obsolescence
Printculture
Pseudopodium
Quick Study
Rake’s Progress
Reader of depressing books
Reading Room
ReadySteadyBlog
Reassigned Time
Reeling and Writhing
Return of the Reluctant
S1ngularity::criticism
Say Something Wonderful
Scribblingwoman
Seventypes
Shaken & Stirred
Silliman’s Blog
Slaves of Academe
Sorrow at Sills Bend
Sounds & Fury
Splinters
Spurious
Stochastic Bookmark
Tenured Radical
the Diaries of Franz Kafka
The Elegant Variation
The Home and the World
The Intersection
The Litblog Co-Op
The Literary Saloon
The Literary Thug
The Little Professor
The Midnight Bell
The Mumpsimus
The Pinocchio Theory
The Reading Experience
The Salt-Box
The Weblog
This Public Address
This Space: The Fire’s Blog
Thoughts, Arguments & Rants
Tingle Alley
Uncomplicatedly
Unfogged
University Diaries
Unqualified Offerings
Waggish
What Now?
William Gibson
Wordherders

Saturday, May 30, 2009

All Hail Our Darwinian Overlords! (NOT)

Posted by Bill Benzon on 05/30/09 at 02:49 PM

Note: This is a revised version of an older post, which I have deleted.

Joseph Carroll has been the chief theorist and proselytizer of literary Darwinism. David DiSalvo has a long interview with him at Neuronarrative.

DiSalvo first asks what literary Darwinism is:

Literary Darwinists integrate literary concepts with a modern evolutionary understanding of the evolved and adapted characteristics of human nature. They aim not just at being one more “school” or movement in literary theory. They aim at fundamentally transforming the framework for all literary study. They think that all knowledge about human behavior, including the products of the human imagination, can and should be subsumed within the evolutionary perspective.

An ambitious program, to say the least. But let’s leave it alone for a bit – I’ll offer an alternative view a bit later – and allow Carroll to continue. He talks broadly about reductionism, culture, literacy, the adaptive value of literature, an empirical study of characters in canonical 19th C. British novels, the brain, human emergence and interaction between scientists and humanists.

The conversation then returns to the future of literary studies. Here’s the downside scenario:

Literary study could continue to insist on disconnecting itself from empirically discernible facts about human nature and human cognition, or it could realize that science is not a threat and a competitor but an ally in the quest for human understanding. If it takes the former course, I think it will continue to decline catastrophically in prestige, enrollments, and funding. Its practitioners will either continue to invent arcane verbal systems designed for the superficial reprocessing of canonical literary texts, or they will resign themselves to the ever more tenuous elaboration of the sophistical quibbles at the heart of postmodern literary theory.

Unless the humanities in general come to grips with the last three or four decades of work in psychology, biology, and neurosciences, and so forth, Carroll believes “they are doomed to irrelevance and triviality.”

If, however, the humanities, and literary studies in particular, undertakes to assimilate this work, here’s the possible upside:

Let’s assume for the sake of argument that literary study manages to get past its own blockages. What then? All the world is before them: large-scale explanatory principles to hash out, a whole taxonomy to found on underlying principles of human nature, whole cultural epochs to analyze from a bio-cultural perspective, multitudes of texts to locate, with all their specific meaning structures and imaginative forms, in these yet-to-be-established bio-cultural contexts. We have before us the macro-world of human evolutionary history and the micro-world of the brain, cultural history to incorporate with human universals; neuroimaging and neurochemical analysis to integrate with tonal and stylistic analysis.

The kind of work I’m describing here would not merely offer new lenses through which to view existing knowledge. It would provide a starting point for a continuous, progressive program in creating new knowledge. Literary Darwinists have to assimilate the best insights of previous theory and criticism, but they have to reformulate those insights within a completely new framework located within the larger, total field of the human sciences. They cannot merely take concepts ready-made from existing evolutionary theories of culture. They have to absorb evolutionary theories, examine them critically, push back when the theories are inadequate to the realities of literary experience, and formulate new fundamental concepts in literary study-formal, generic, and historical. They have to participate in fashioning the linkages between their own specific fields of endeavor and the broader field of the evolutionary human sciences. They have to make the world anew.

We’ve got two decades to prepare ourselves for the new dispensation:

Five years ago, literary Darwinism was just a mild sensation on the margins of literary study. It is now a swelling tide. In five years, ten, maybe fifteen, possibly even twenty, I think it will have fundamentally altered the framework within which literary study is conducted.

I have no objections, in principle, to a new framework. I just don’t see that literary Darwinism is deep enough to be such a framework. That’s a bit much to take on here and now (more griping here, substantial criticism here).

I will note that I’m consistently puzzled about what’s evolutionary or Darwinian about this approach, whatever its intellectual merit may prove to be. It’s never been clear to me just what makes evolutionary psychology so, well, “evolutionary.” Oh, I know the rationalization, it’s about our evolved human nature. And surely we’re evolved, no? But, it’s one species, just one, and the evolutionary psychologists have (conceptually) stopped the clock on it. So there’s not much evolution going on within this psychology.

The application of those ideas to literature, however, changes things a bit. Now you’ve got a subject matter with a real history and lots of forms, lots of morphology. Here you could be sensibly evolutionary - though you’d have to conceptualize evolution in the cultural realm - and the Darwinists ignore the possibility. I see no interest in literary form, precious little in language, nor in literary history. And yet this is supposed to be the source of a revolution in the study of literature.

I don’t buy it. As far as I can tell “evolution” and “Darwin” function mostly as intellectual brand identifiers and little more. The actual thinking being done owes little to either. As for making the world anew, I don’t believe that is on the agenda, not the way I read the current practical criticism of the Darwinists.

Now let me offer an alternative view of the future of literary studies. I agree with Carroll that explicit steps need to be taken to assimilate the newer psychologies and I believe that perhaps in fifteen or twenty years literary studies will be conducted within a different framework. But I do not believe literary Darwinism will be the primary source of that framework. It’s not even clear to me that that framework will even have a primary source, not if those sources are to be identified with existing disciplines or constellations of disciplines. I believe that the cognitive and neurosciences will also play a role in that framework (nor do I think either of them can simply be assimilated to evolutionary psychology; they have independent intellectual roots and methods – but that’s a rather large discussion). 

I believe many of the current “isms” that seem so sclerotic must necessarily exert their own pressures and influence on this new framework, whatever it is. Their concerns are real and important and are not going to disappear under pressure from the newer psychologies.

And then there is the possibility that the study of children’s literature will no longer to consigned to schools of education – such a development would be a real head-spinner.

I venture to say that evolutionary thinking will play an important role in that framework, but it will be cultural evolution, not biological. The fundamental terms of an approach to cultural evolution have yet to be worked out, though there is a good deal of work going on of various kinds (for my own highly biased view, look here). Nor do I believe that those terms will have been worked out in twenty years; after all, the terms of biological evolution are still under discussion. But we will be further along than we are now. Cultural evolution necessarily implies cultural difference, and so the last three or four decades of work on ethnicity, colonialism, and related matters will certainly have a home here, as will historicism. Nor can I see gender issues disappearing, for they have a non-trivial cultural component.

As for the burgeoning practice of literary Darwinism, perhaps it will have dissolved as a distinct intellectual formation, its work having been done. If it continues to exist, however, it will do so only as a particular school within that future framework. Perhaps it will even retain its reputation for scrappy defensive maneuvering against all comers. 


Comments

I think Bill Benzon makes valid points here.  Carroll says in the interview, “Developing the power of envisioning the world imaginatively must have had adaptive value for our ancestors. Otherwise, they would not have devoted so much time to it or have developed so many cognitive aptitudes geared specifically for it. Those aptitudes, if they were adaptive, would have served as a selective force on the population, altering the gene pool, favoring those genes that facilitate producing and consuming works of imagination.”

But where is the evidence that imaginative culture (literature) has adaptive value?  We call people who spend their lives reading “bookish.” This branch of evolutionary psychology is faith-based literary theory.

Norm Holland
University of Florida

By normholland on 05/31/09 at 04:54 PM | Permanent link to this comment

Yes, Norm, the question of whether or not literature is biologically adaptive is a tricky one and has been and intellectual Tar-Baby for over a decade. I’ve gotten entangled in it myself. Only three weeks or so ago I offered a hypothesis about literature’s adaptive value, which Keith Oatley was kind enough to elaborate on it at OnFiction. Then, a bit less than two weeks ago I took up the issue in the context of a review of Brian Boyd’s On the Origin of Stories. At that point I’d decided the question was undecidable at this time, and possibly irrelevant.

That is my current view, though I reserve the right to adopt a different view at any time provided, of course, I can produce a compelling reason to do so. And there’s the rub. I don’t think we have a deep enough understanding of neuro-literary mechanisms to state the issue in a way that is amenable to empirical confirmation or falsification. Without that possibility we’re arguing over “which imaginary girlfriend to sleep with,” to borrow of phrase from William Deresiewicz. As you say, Norm, at this point it’s a matter of faith, or ideology.

By Bill Benzon on 05/31/09 at 05:32 PM | Permanent link to this comment

Add a comment:

Name:
Email:
Location:
URL:

 

Remember my personal information

Notify me of follow-up comments?

Please enter the word you see in the image below: