Evolutionary social constructivism

Abstract

Evolutionary theory has been controversial throughout its history for reasons that go beyond religious matters. Even among nonbelievers, something momentous and contentious appears to be at stake. The controversy also transcends knowledge of the subject. It has not quieted over the decades, despite tremendous advances in knowledge, and it currently divides the foremost authorities on evolution, as the pages of professional journals and popular intellectual forums such as the New York Review of Books attest. Among the sophisticates, the controversy does not center on the basic fact of evolution but on certain consequences, such as the importance of natural selection and especially the relevance of evolution to human affairs. The intellectual positions most fiercely opposed to "sociobiology" and "evolutionary psychology" include social constructivism, postmodernism, and deconstructionism. These positions are different from each other but united in their commitment to the idea that individuals and societies have enormous flexibility in what they can become, in contrast to the inflexibility and determinism attributed to evolutionary approaches to human behavior. I will refer to this core idea as social constructivism, with apologies for obscuring the differences between the positions referred to above that are important in other contexts. These debates usually become so polarized that they reveal the worst aspects of tribalism in our species. Each side regards the other as the enemy whose position has no substance or rational basis, other than being ideologically driven. The middle ground becomes a no-man's-land into which no one dares to venture. Given this kind of intellectual trench warfare, it is no wonder that ideas can stagnate for years, decades, and even centuries. This essay attempts a more productive exploration of the middle ground. I will try to show that the heart of social constructivism can be given an evolutionary formulation. Social constructivists have more to gain from adopting an evolutionary perspective than by avoiding it, and sociobiologists need to incorporate large elements of social constructivism into their own framework. This is not an exercise in empty diplomacy in which everyone continues to think as they did before. Instead, it is an attempt to genuinely occupy the middle ground that requires fundamental movement on both sides. Why should a chapter on evolutionary social constructivism appear in a book on evolution and literature? One reason is that literary studies have historically been dominated by social constructivist perspectives. Skepticism toward a genre of evolutionary literary studies is fueled by the larger issues, with literature the battleground rather than the battle. Another reason is that evolutionary social constructivism relies fundamentally upon narrative. The reason that individuals and societies have a capacity for change is largely because of the importance of stories in psychological and cultural evolutionary processes. Copyright © 2005 by Northwestern University Press. "Literature, Science, and Human Nature".