The Human Beings and the Evolutionary Process - Essay Example

 The Human Beings and the Evolutionary Process It has aptly been stated that the discipline of anthropology studies the human beings with special reference to the evolutionary process they (and their ancestors) have experienced. In other words, the subject discusses the cultural and biological alterations attributed to the humans and their past civilizations at large (Kroeber 1963). Theories have been articulated and researches have been conducted in order to explore and elaborate the developments in human appearance and behavior taken place during the course of time in order to discover the reasons behind these transformations of various kinds. The names and contributions made by Lamarck and Darwin appear to be at the top of the list of the anthropologists-theorists rendering the most noteworthy services in the discipline of evolution and biological-cultural anthropology. Renowned nineteenth century English biologist-naturalist Sir Charles Darwin (1809-82) presented his distinguished Theory of Evolution in his illustrious work On the Origin of Species (1859), where he articulated the unique idea that humans could have shared the same ancestry associated with the other species existing on the face of the earth. By this Darwin perhaps does not mean to challenge the Biblical mythology or ridiculing the religious beliefs in order to hurt the sentiments of the followers of Abrahamic faiths (i.e. Judaism, Christianity and Islam). On the contrary, he just looks for elucidating the relationship between man’s physical and mental growth through adaptation according to the changes taking place within the natural, physical and social environment. In other words, Darwinian anthropology asserted a meaningful relationship between the workings of nature and the conscious actions of animal breeders (Marks 1999). Though aptly criticized by the Darwin’s contemporary theologians and dogmatists, he was not the pioneer in respect of articulating the evolution theory. On the other hand, his predecessor Jean-Baptiste Lamarck (1744-1829) had already presented the similar notion that various species, including the human beings, observe significant transformations in their biological and social traits according to the physical and cultural phenomena existing around them. Not only this that the species adopt these changes according to the circumstances, but also they maintain the ability of transferring the same characteristics to their young ones through hereditary process (Bowler 2003). Somehow, Darwin dedicated himself in respect of unearthing the realities regarding the changes species experience during the course of time. These changes, according to the theorist, occur because of the biological needs and requirements of the species. Darwin claims to have followed the inductionist canon, according to Ayala (2009), prevalent among his contemporary British philosophers and economists, including J.S. Mill, Francis Bacon and others. Hence, he concentrated upon multiple similar species and applied his hypothesis upon different species too in order to draw out conclusions paving the way towards his marvelous theory of evolution seeking one and the same ancestry for the species sharing similar physical traits. Darwin accumulated scientific evidence in support of his evolution theory by concentrating upon two points; first, whether or not evolution has taken place in the biological and social life of the individuals; and secondly whether the evolution has undergone various stages for adopting the present shape and form developed by the species. Consequently, the in-depth investigation made by this great science giant i.e. Darwin was not confined to mere speculation or the limited study confined to some specific species only. Rather, the study focused upon insects and mammals, vertebrates and invertebrates, fowls and fish, and animals and fish at large. Though the dogmatists opposed Darwinian perspective to a great extent, the theory witnessed imperative support from different intellectual corners, including his contemporary Alfred Russell Wallace (1823–1913) and the successor scientists Tylor, Weltfish, Max, Engels, Luxemburg and others. Consequently, the theory gave birth to the idea of social evolution, and cultural anthropology, where the theorists expanded the Darwinian biological and naturalistic perspective to the social and cultural fields. Edward B. Tylor (1832-1917) finds changes in the cultural aspects of society in the wake of the circumstances challenging the humans. A culture or civilization, according to him, is that complex whole, which includes knowledge, belief, art, moral, laws, customs and any other capabilities and habits acquired by man as a member of society (Kroeber 60-61). He further maintains that culture evolved from the simple to the complex and that all societies passed through three basic stages of development: from savagery through barbarism to civilization. It is not specific to one single area of society only; on the contrary, such transformations could be observed in every institution of society, including political, economic and religious. The evidence of the same notion could be observed by looking into the history of cultures and civilizations in general, where the human societies have reached the current position from savage life of Paleolithic and Neolithic eras of primitive times to the systems of clan, tribe, community and present day nuclear family set ups. While elaborating his views, Tylor declares the developments being made in one part of the globe certainly influencing the others in one way or the other. These effects being observed in one specific area on the rest of the world could be the outcome of trade, business, military adventures and travelling from one region to the other, which turn out to be supportive in transferring some newly developed transformations from one area to the other. As a result, the primitive communities, according to him, experienced growth and position in their life by learning, instead of unlearning (Tylor 2006). Hence, Tylor looks endorsing the Darwinian perspective regarding the evolutionary process human cultures and societies have witnessed since the first community and society came into existence in the primitive times. The similar views have also been expressed by Darwin’s contemporary American anthropologist Lewis Henry Morgan (1809-1881). The main focus of Morgan’s theoretical framework was detecting the development of kinship and relations between the members of family and blood relations in general. Being a cultural biologist, he pays more heed to the evolution of cultural values and social norms and traits rather than biological evolution the species had undergone. Consequently, Morgan’s approach resembles with that articulated by Tylor, though it slightly supports the Darwinian perspective. Similar to English biologist E.B. Tylor, Morgan has elucidated three stages the human societies experience including savagery, barbarism, and civilization in his famous work Ancient Society (1877). All these three stages convert from backwardness to comparatively advance next stage in the wake of scientific and/or technological advancements the societies adopt gradually but in a persistent manner. The growth of these societies from savage to barbarism and civilized one, Morgan asserts, had a correlate in patterns of subsistence, marriage, family, and political organization (1877 3-5). However, he views transformations in the family set up equivalent to the changes the entire social structure experiences. It is partly due to the very reality that family serves as the most fundamental and primary institution of every society, which has reciprocal relation of influence with the mainstream society. It is therefore both these are affected by one another, paving the way towards development and growth. In his words: As it is undeniable that portions of the human family have existed in a state of savagery, other portions in a state of barbarism, and still others in a state of civilization, it seems equally so that these three distinct conditions are connected with each other in a natural as well as necessary sequence of progress (Barnard 2000). In other words, at savagery state, there are no fundamental laws determined for marriage, sex and financial activities. As a result, the individuals could have sexual relationship with the member of his/her choice without taking his/her relationship with the sex partner. However, barbarism applied some restrictions on the same, and strictly discouraged free sex and family systems based on traditions and customs. In addition, the civilized family system provided a comprehensive legal system of entering into marital knot as well as for developing sexual relationships with the members of society i.e. husband and wife, the children of which will obtain respectable legal status in human society. Morgan’s perspective appears to be quite divergent one in comparison with the one articulated by Darwin. Since Darwin has never alluded to the stages the species undergo, nor has he argued the process of evolution from barbarism to civility, his theory is somewhat different from the one presented by Morgan. World’s great philosopher, theorist as well as father of Socialism i.e. Karl Marx (1818-1883) has also vehemently supported the evolutionary process the nations undergo in one way or the other. The theoretical framework attributed to Marx is famous to be Marxist perspective, which unconditionally declares exploitation of the haves-not at the hands of haves as one of the most fundamental factors behind the cultural changes in social establishments (Ritzer 2007). He is of the opinion that means of production remain at the hands of the producer or owner of an agricultural land and/or industrial unit, which eventually captures an overwhelming share of the income as well as profit the land and unit produce, on the basis of the investment of money and resources he has made. Consequently, the workers, laborers and peasants making heavy investment of physical labor and toil for the increase and acceleration of their respective work place and production as well get almost nothing in return. As a result, disappointment and frustration haunt their minds, and they start feeling themselves to be aliens at their work place eventually. Since their work appears to be unable to fulfill their social and financial needs, they begin looking for alternative methods in order to overcome their financial worries. Thus, the first thing appears in reaction to their exploitation is the revolt of the working class i.e. proletariat against the producer i.e. bourgeoisie in order to snatch their share from the producer or owner. It certainly creates an unpleasant state of social conflict, which results in the victory of the working classes over the elite stratum, paving the way towards evolution ultimately, where the workers would rule over the social establishment eventually. Marx’s comrade and life-long friend Friedrich Engels (1820-1895) worked as a close aide and worker in the Socialist Movement launched by Karl Marx, and provided a full-fledged support to the Marxist cause during Marx’s life and after his death. Engels’ noteworthy work under the title The Origin of the Family, Private Property, and the State: in the light of the researches of Lewis H. Morgan was published in 1884, where he describes the transformations of family set ups and patterns on gradual basis. He discusses patriarchic and matriarchic family patterns, which are dominated by the male and female heads of family respectively. Besides, Engels also elaborates Consanguine, Punaluan and pairing family systems (Ritzer 2007), where in Consanguine family system, husband and wife develop sexual relations with one another, which can belong to same tribe and clan, and sex is not a taboo with the close relations. However, with the development of family establishments, Punaluan family arises, which restricts sexual relationships (including marriage) between siblings, cousins and direct relations. In case of pairing family set up, the matrimonial relations are prohibited with the distant blood relations too for the sake of the sacred status of family, which does not allow marriage and sex between the members of one and same family tree altogether. By critically evaluating Engels’ theory, it becomes evident that ancient Greek deities could marry their siblings and other blood relations, which became taboo during the early and late medieval eras. Similarly, the Victorian and modern eras imperatively discouraged the marriages between close relations, and the idea of inter-racial marriages appeared with the passage of time, ratifying the socio-cultural evolutionary changes suggested by Friedrich Engels in his theoretical framework. Impressed by the Marxism, the Russian-German socialist-anthropologist Rosa Luxemburg (1871-1919) articulated her famous Theory of Imperialism by the beginning of twentieth century. She, like Marxism-Socialism, vehemently condemns the exploitation of the downtrodden and weak people at the hands of the elite and powerful strata. Somehow, her canvas appears to be broadening one, where she censures the elite states and countries destroying the wealth and resources of the poor and hapless nations by inflicting the imperialistic and colonial systems on them by dint of their strategic, military and economic superiority over them. The Capitalist states, according to Luxemburg, proceed to the foreign lands in order to discover overseas markets, capture human resource by force as well as raw material, and hence take advantage of the poor nations, bring them to heel and sometimes subordinate them militarily, in the excessive and limitless “accumulation of capital” (Quoted in Ruthless Criticism). It results into the absolute deterioration of the colonized and subjugated nations at the hands of the big and influential powers, giving way to the political and economic system of their choice subsequently. Thus, the future years may bring the news of the domination of the capitalistic system, where all small nations belonging to the world would be the financial slave of the big powers eventually. Thus, Luxemburg also longs for a decisive revolution that could break the shackles of social injustices, inequalities and exploitations from the face of society. Hence, she appears to be the advocate of social change, but the form of change must be established on the foundations of equality, peace and freedom, the causes for achieving the same she sacrificed her life at the prime of her youth. Works Cited Ayala, F. J. Darwin and the Scientific Method Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of California, Irvine, 2009 CA 92697 Retrieved from http://www.pnas.org/content/106/suppl.1/10033.full Accessed on 02-14-2013 Barnard, Alan History and Theory in Anthropology Cambridge University Press: Cambridge 2000 Print Bowler, Peter J Evolution: the History of an Idea University of California Press 2003 Print ISBN 0-520-23693-9 Kroeber, Alfred L. Anthropology: Culture Patterns & Processes HBJ Book London 1963 Print Ritzer, George. “Sociological Theory” 3rd Edition, McGraw-Hill, N.Y 2007 Print Ruthless Criticism Theses on Rosa Luxemburg’s Theory of Imperialism Retrieved from http://www.ruthlesscriticism.com/rosa.htm Accessed on 02-14-2013 Read More