Conservatives for Darwin (Again)

Ann Althouse has a post that has some interesting tidbits in it. A discussion of the validity of conservatism as proved by Darwinism, according to Larry Arnhardt, who apparently knows less about Darwin than he does about history:

Darwinists and conservatives share a similar view of human beings: they are imperfect; they have organized in male-dominated hierarchies; they have a natural instinct for accumulation and power; and their moral thought has evolved over time.

The institutions that successfully evolved to deal with this natural order were conservative ones, founded in sentiment, tradition and judgment, like limited government and a system of balances to curb unchecked power, he explains. Unlike leftists, who assume “a utopian vision of human nature” liberated from the constraints of biology, [political scientist Larry] Arnhart says, conservatives assume that evolved social traditions have more wisdom than rationally planned reforms.

There are some assumptions in these statements that don't quite hold up to examination.

(Reading his comments in light of what conservatism has become in the last generation is the irony of the day -- maybe of the month. His arguments don't have a lot to do with the Bush-league stuff we're seeing these days. Limited government? Gone. Checks and balances? Anathema. Male-dominated hierarchies and accumulation and power are still going strong.)

Darwinism has periodically been invoked as a paradigm for social organization, and it always comes a cropper. The only area outside of biology I've ever seen that can make use of the concepts of evolution is linguistics. (I think I've discussed Merritt Ruhlen's excellent The Origin of Language in that context.) Darwinism vis-a-vis society generally works out as a rationale by the top of the food chain for maintaining the status quo. I haven't read Arnart's book (and I have no intention of doing so -- it would probably give me fits), so I'm simply going to focus on the implications of what Althouse has quoted.

The most glaring flaw is the first sentence of the second paragraph. Cart, horse. Arnhart arbitrarily designates historical institutions as "conservative." It's not even a complete list. How about infanticide? Is that a conservative institution? It has ample historical and biological precedent. Polygamy and harems? Lots of them in many societies, and that's an institution that also appears in our nearest relatives. What about the institution of the berdache in North American societies and similar institutions elsewhere? What's his conservative/Darwinian explanation for that? Representative democracy? That's certainly anti-Darwinian. What about those societies that have been matriarchal or matrilineal, such as the early Celts and the Pelasgian peoples (pre-Indo-European) of Greece?

He also, I think. misrepresents the liberal view of human nature. He leaves out two of our most salient characteristics: we as a species are highly adaptable and easily educable. (I know, the "easily" part is open to debate, but comparatively speaking, we can learn faster and more completely than any other species.) That is really what the "utopian vision" is founded on. The Founders, of course, were the products of classical liberalism, so I could make the argument that he is arguing against the American system of government here. It certainly has some utopian features.

OK -- that's just from a paragraph and a half of Arnhart's thought, and I'm not even pursuing some of his points.

The more I think about this, the more I'm inclined just to throw up my hands. What a putz.

(PS -- Looking at this again, I didn't really mean this to be a "But what about. . . ?" post, but it seems to me that Arnhart is being very selective in his examples of "conservative" institutions that are the product of evolution, and drawing sweeping generalizations based on a highly edited survey of the evidence. In other words, I think my examples are bigger than his examples. Read that as you will.)