Darwin he believes that different races have different levels of intellectual ability and that for this reason he expects the better adapted races to replace others. He repeatedly contrasts the "civilized" with the "savage" races, and suggests that the former are more evolved. For example, he points out that those from the African continent have a better developed sense of smell and that this characteristic is even more robust in dogs and chimps. More strikingly, he quotes an expert who compares the jaws of various races, and finds that the shorter jaw and late developed molars in Europeans (in comparison with those of Africans) are evidence that they have been less needed as the former have been eating cooked food longer. He also approvingly quotes at length another scientists who contrasts the impulsive Irish with the frugal Scot, noting with regret how the former are more likely to reproduce.
In other words, Darwin is a racist... and a Victorian bigot.
When he first introduces the contrasts between the races, however, it is cast not just in terms of natural selection/variation, but in terms of improvements brought about by use/disuse. In other words, Darwin is embraces the Larmarkian thesis that use/disuse affect ones progeny. Interesting that, when it comes to human evolution, he finds nothing inconsistent in giving this sort of account on one page and natural selection on another.
His embrace of Lamarkian explanations of how humans differ from non-humans and how human races differ from each other renders the present debate about evolution somewhat comical. Proponents of Darwinism assume that Darwinism means the affirmation that random variation, natural selection and sexual selection account for the diversity of our present species. Anything added to this is anti-Darwinian. So I guess Darwin himself is not "Darwinian" as understood by his contemporary proponents. Then again, his detractors also accept the claim that the same three principles help account for the variation found in the species, but they then (thinking here of Behe) attack "Darwinian evolution" as if Darwin had no room for anything beyond random variation, as well as natural and sexual selection. Darwin may have left no room for creationist supernaturalism, but he left the door open for some kind of teleology being involved in the origin of new variations--as long as it was of the naturalistic kind.
Moral of the story. Both sides should separate the abstract principle (that random variation natural selection/sexual selection account for the variation in the species) from the opinions held by Darwin the man. Proponents should avoid calling themselves Darwinians inasmuch as they definitely do not aspire to describe and explain differences in the races in the same way that he did. And also, unlike Darwin, they are rightly opposed to Lamarkian explanation. Opponents should stop overlooking the Lamarkian side of Darwin. They should instead point out that (as I argue below), it places a burden of proof on the contemporary Darwinian (whom we'll call the neo-Darwinian for more than one reason) to explain how their take on evolution does NOT lead to racism. Also, they should point out that if Darwin can, without inconsistency be open to something other than random variation, natural selection and sexual selection as a partial natural explanations of the variation of the species, they can too. As long as the explanation can be tested scientifically, it should be taken seriously in scientific discussions. The problem is, of course, that the explanation sounds too much like a supernatural one to so-called Darwinians, and that is another issue for another day.
In defense of Darwin but NOT in defense of his racism: It is worth noting that Lamarkian evolution is much more supportive of racism than the combination of random variation and natural selection. Consider how a Lamarkian looks at cultural differences: some cultures are more advanced than others. And individuals who live a more cultured life are going to have babies that are more capable of cultural achievments. In other words, superior cultures breed superior babies. With Lamark, cultural superiority quickly brings about biological superiority.
Such is NOT the case if evolution is a result of random variation plus natural selection. One who believes only in natural selection and random variation and who rejects Lamarkian use/disuse insists that the practices of a society do NOT influence the quality of the gene pool. So if Darwin is a racist (and he is) it is not so much because he is Darwinian as because he is Lamarkian. Or even better, an ethnocentric, Victorian Lamarkian.
It is easy now to see why the cultural elites in the early 20th century believed in eugenics: they were Darwinians (that is, Lamarkian Darwinians). In fact, Darwin himself comes to the precipice of suggesting Eugenics. He points out that (as he believes) the tendency to commit crimes can be inherited. And he notes that our tendency to care for the sick the the stupid will bring down our genetic pool. He shows some regret for the fact that the latter will happen, but accepts it as a natural (but not that desirable) consequence of our social instincts. He expresses the wish that those who are maimed or mentally deficient would not reproduce (he says something to the effect that it is "to be hoped for than expected that the weak in body and mind will refrain from marriage"), but he does not seem willing to suggest that they be prevented from doing so.
Add to everything that I have noted one more bit of evidence: Darwin refers to Spencer in The Descent of Man as a "great philosopher," and one strongly suspects that he, like Spencer, was a "Social Darwinist." He was enthusiastic about superior races replacing the inferior. How ironic that he was born on the same day as Abraham Lincoln!
Of course, one who accepts Darwin's original contributions to biology need not be a racist. Simply by rejecting Lamark one will deprive racists of much of their biological sounding basis. But it is worth noting that there is absolutely NOTHING in Darwin's combination of random variation and natural selection that forces one to reject racism. For the classically Darwinian thesis about evolution is not inconsistent with Lamark at all (i.e., both can be considered subalternate explanations), and a Lamarkian version of evolution quickly becomes racist.
When faced with the inadequacy of classically Darwinian theory to oppose racism, one can say that equality is not a biological thesis but an ethical claim. This might be true, but it would seem that ethics is in some way tied to human nature. If so, then there is something quite unsatisfactory about the complete refusal of an egalitarian who is also a Darwinian to relate the "ought" of ethics in any way to the "is" of human nature. Such a refusal seems like a bit of legerdemain when it is made by a positivist--one who thinks that only scientific accounts can claim to be objective and rational.
Comments