Defining beauty is “extremely
complicated, in part because the things we call beautiful are so different”.
With this leading statement, Dutton began his argument for the case supporting
biology-based and evolution-driven psychological development of the human race.
To help narrow down this immense topic, he subdivided the abstract idea of
beauty into four categories: human beings, natural landforms, works of art, and
skilled human actions. However, it was his discussion of artistic beauty and
how it played into the evolution of human kind from homo eructus to homo
sapiens that really peaked my interest. According to Dutton, Acheulian hand
axes (approximately 2.5 million years old!) are the earliest works of intended
art. They were made to display intelligence, fine motor control, planning
ability, conscientiousness, and access to raw materials to potential mates. What
makes this particularly amazing is that at that time, there was no form of
language.
This is where Dutton’s theory of
beauty begins to show large holes in my opinion. How would it be possible for
the making of hand axes to become not only so popular, but also used to
determine potential mates if there was no language between the humans of the
time. Obviously, communication had to have occurred in order to have any sort
of interaction between individual humans. From this murky idea of hand axes for
mate selection, Dutton then jumps to the conclusion that because of the natural
selection of humans with well-designed hand axes, in modern days, we find
beauty in something done with skill.
If biology is the reason that we
appreciate activities performed with skill, why would that not be a universal characteristic
of all animals from gazelles to humans to sharks? Any “achievement” performed
with “skill” as defined by any given species would be desirable. From that
perspective, our definition of beauty has nothing to do with people as humans,
but rather people as animals. Talk about removing originality and uniqueness.
Dutton’s theory seems implausible
to me because it removes individuality from the equation. Why does a person
have a favorite color? Why do some people love rock music and others think it
sounds like nails on a chalk board? I don’t think we need to trace our
individual family trees back to when we were first climbing out of the
primordial ooze to find the answer. It is our own individual experiences and
perceptions that shape our vision. That is not to say that some of our qualities
and characteristics as humans are not adaptations from evolution. There is a
reason we adapted from a four-legged existence to two legs and two arms.
After doing some reflection, I
think my ideas about Dutton’s presentation are generated from my scientific background
(I reject anything with such limited data), my desire to succeed (I want to not
only do well, but be the best aka an individual), and my Christianity (that
whole God created us to be unique individuals bit). I hold true that humans and
animals have evolved from an initial creation. I also hold true that every
living thing on Earth is unique in individual development but governed by the
same laws of nature. Dutton’s theory seems to poke at the idea of a unique existence
for me.
Now comes the messy intersection
of opinion and fact. Science is based on facts and reality. In modern society,
facts are rarely provided and discussed. This is because a fact is truth but an
opinion can be argued. You will notice that in Dutton’s video, he never
mentioned concrete facts or repeatable studies. That is partially because what
he is discussing is “soft” science meaning that it is all pretty much
conjecture. How can you perform an experiment on what homo erectus found
beautiful? You simply can’t. That is why topics like this in particular get
dragged into “science wars”. Ironically, the questions asked by “soft”
scientists are usually the most controversial. I think this is because they
regard human behavior, thoughts, and nature. They stab at our core values.
Dutton didn’t approach the “science
wars” in an intentional, aggressive manner I believe because his language wasn’t
heated. However, his theory definitely pushed potential buttons by discussing
evolution. In order to win a battle, no matter how small or large, you have to
show up. That is what he did. I think that I did not actively participate in
the “science wars” as I listened to his perspective, reflected upon it, and
made a decision based on the data I had been given. The data I had been given
did not just include what he stated in his presentation; it also included my
past experiences. This inclusion of outside experiences into my conclusion
caused me to also be a passive participant in the “science wars”.
Given our social development with
the encouragement of free ideas, there will always be “science wars”. Especially
since so much of what is currently regarded as science (but should maybe be
regarded as philosophy) is conjecture that can’t be proven with
experimentation. However, what can be learned from my interpretation of this
video is not my ideas on Dutton’s theory of beauty but how to handle the
situation of being confronted with new ideas. What we must do: keep an open
mind, listen to the entire thought before making a conclusion, asking questions
if possible, and never giving up or interrupting the speaker.
I really like the way you want to distinguish people as persons from people as animals, and think that is a valuable categorical distinction to bring up, if only because it offered a very interesting rhetorical pivot in your argument. I am left with two questions after reading your blog post.
ReplyDelete1.) I am tangentially aware (being the squishy humanist that I am, I don't follow science closely) of some strains of evolutionary biology that don't contend that Darwinian Evolution is about "progress" per se, but merely greater and greater complexity as species diversity and proliferate endlessly. I wonder how this addresses your concern for individuality, and might prove a foil to your argument.
2.) If that kind of evolutionary biology is in fact the case, does it matter if our individual preferences are the consequence of biological and genetic diversity (and determinism, presumably) or our own choices, or something else? I prefer the color blue, and I suspect it is because every sports team I have ever cheered for has worn blue, and not because I am genetically predisposed to like Chelsea Football Club, and therefore the color blue, but the very fact that we all have distinct preferences and can express them seems to me to make the conversation about where they came from seem a little less urgent, though certainly not moot.
Enjoyed your post! Thanks for sharing your take!
You really nail the 'reductionist' quality to this work. But whenever I see something over-reduced / simplified, it's sort of a call to ask what's going on ideologically. Here, everything is reduced to sexual selection (and BTW: love the sassy title), or adaptation. What's up with privileging THESE? What else may be going on? And Dr. D: why are you so interested in sex? (lol)
ReplyDelete