Principles of the Theory of Natural Selection - Essay Example

? Social Darwinism Essay of Introduction The theory of Charles Darwin was ground-breaking. He modified the established theory of human nature and also revolutionized the history of psychology. Widely known subject matters in contemporary psychology evidently reflect a strong connection to Darwin’s theory: abnormal psychology, behavioral genetics, emotions, learning, psychobiology, comparative psychology, animal psychology, developmental psychology, and various other subjects under the field of applied psychology (Hergenhahn, 2008, 301). Generally, Darwin promoted a focus on individual differences and proved that exploring behavior is as important as exploring the mind. Nevertheless, the influence of Darwin was not completely favorable. He took into consideration several assumptions currently regarded very problematic or flawed, like the following (Hergenhahn, 2008, 301): Contemporary primitive people are the link between primates and modern humans (that is Europeans) and are therefore, inferior. Women are intellectually inferior to men. Alland (1985) says, “Darwin at his worst is Darwin on women” (p. 24). Long practiced habits become heritable instincts; in the other words, in explaining cultural differences among humans, Darwin accepted Larmarkian theory. Besides its broad influence on psychology, Darwin’s theory, particularly his evolutionary theory, is presently exerting a stronger influence. Edward Wilson, in 1975, made public his work entitled Sociobiology: The New Synthesis, which tries to give an explanation of organisms’ social behavior, as well as that of human beings, within the context of evolutionary theory (Hergenhahn, 2008, 301-302). By adjusting Darwin’s description of fitness from the reproduction and survival of the human being to the transmission of a person’s genes, sociobiology can explain a broad range of human social behaviors. Specifically, as believed by sociobiologists, fitness is established by the success of an organism in continuing its genes but not essentially by the success of an organism to reproduce. By stressing the essence of passing on an organism’s genes, sociobiologists give greater importance to genetic or kin. Because an individual’s kin has his/her genes, strengthening their survival chances and reproductive capacity becomes a useful way of passing on one’s genes (Buss, 2005). This sociobiology is currently named ‘evolutionary psychology’ and is widely known in contemporary psychology (Vincent & Brown, 2005). Darwin’s assumptions encouraged the formation of a distinctively American form of psychology, a psychology that placed emphasis on individual differences and their assessment, the adaptive or flexible nature of behavior and thoughts, and animal behavior research. Darwin’s Theory of Natural Selection Evolution is the behavioral, genetic, or physical transformation in groups of biological life forms over time. The more fascinating and important evidence of evolution stems from natural selection, which is a mechanism that designs biological structures. Natural selection operates within environmental, developmental, and genetic limitations to form biological life forms in ways that make them seem adjusted to their immediate environments (Jackson, 2013). Darwin recognized hereditary differences resulting in evolution, and evolution resulting in new organisms and in new allocations of attributes within populations. Three assumptions are introduced by Darwin as regards natural selection (Vincent & Brown, 2005, 83): 1. Like tends to beget like and there is heritable variation in traits associated with each type of organism. 2. Among organisms there is a struggle for existence. 3. Heritable traits influence the struggle for existence. The natural selection theory of Darwin is the core explanation of how organisms evolve to adjust to their evolving environments. It is rooted in the observation that unforeseen physical transformations, or ‘mutations’, in living species take place quite haphazardly or by chance from one generation to the next. When such mutations enhance the capability of a living species to survive, the new attributes are ‘selected for’ (Vincent & Brown, 2005, 83); specifically, an organism that has those attributes has greater chances of survival, and thus more likely to produce offspring and transmit its attributes to the next generation, than organisms that do not have new attributes. Over several generations, these mutations can turn out to be quite wide-ranging that two organisms are produced where beforehand there was merely one (Vincent & Brown, 2005, 83-84). This natural selection process explains the rich diversity of plant and animal life and the capacity of plants and animals to adjust to the unfamiliar environments. The natural selection theory was derived from Darwin’s empirical findings about the natural world. On his journey in the early 1830s, Darwin had seen, in both living and dead organisms, that several species of turtles, birds, and other animal species had changed their physical shape in ways that appeared to adapt or match them to their environment (Buss, 2005). However, he only decided to reveal his findings to the public after two decades. As a passionately religious individual himself, he had to be certain personally that the observations validate the ground-breaking premises of his theory. Moreover, a great deal of what he had discovered strongly defied the central beliefs of many of the scientific and religious authorities of his time, for when Darwin took into account all the findings, and particularly his observations of the same organisms on different places, it became apparent to him that God did not create all life forms on the planet straight away—rather, they had been changing, transforming, or evolving through natural selection (Vincent & Brown, 2005, 84). Ultimately, his theory may be true for all other organisms, as well as human beings. Social Darwinism and its Impact on Psychology The natural selection theory had a major influence on biological science and psychology but a bigger influence on the dominant beliefs about human society. Herbert Spencer was one of the social philosophers who were deeply inspired by Darwin. Spencer argued that the fact that human beings, not like other organisms, have stayed the same even on different places should be accounted for by the fact that human beings adjust to changes in their immediate environment by means of culture instead of biological adjustment (Jackson, 2013, 142). Spencer strongly held to this assumption and introduced the expression ‘survival of the fittest’, which means that the individuals who are thriving in their environments, specifically, the richer, more powerful, and more educated individuals, have greater survival chances and are more likely to produce strong offspring (Jackson, 2013, 142). Spencer’s theory, which was eventually called ‘social darwinism’, tried to give an explanation of the reason why several individuals succeeded during the Industrial Revolution whereas others failed. The unstructured discipline of psychology has been interested in social phenomenon and systems more inclusive than the individual, particularly in social change, culture, collectivities, and groups. Evolutionary theory was the catalysts for the emergence of social Darwinism in numerous societies: the biological model was related to social entities rather than to organisms. Theorists diverged with regard to the relationship of the individual to society and group dynamics but they all believed in one evolutionary mechanism in social change (Buss, 2005). Underlying their doctrine was Darwin’s concept of natural selection, related to human societies. This gave a justification for structuring ethnic groups and societies in terms of their reputation and supremacy, which they argued was directly associated with their level of progress on the recognized evolutionary level (Jackson, 2013, 141-142). Hence, certain groups were the most sophisticated, enlightened, and culturally superior, and others were backward and uncivilized. Eugenics expanded the assumptions of social Darwinism. It argued that the methodical sterilization of the rapidly growing population of ‘inferiors’ is needed to protect strong human traits. Eventually, supporters, such as prominent psychologists Henry Goddard and Carl Brigham, expanded these assumptions to entire populations and nations. Reporting to the U.S. Congress and the mass media, they exploited purported intelligence test information in their loud political attempts to restrict immigration in the U.S. (Deaux & Snyder, 2012, 16). A number of popular psychologists were intensely involved in the debate. Edward Ross and William McDougall both supported deliberate racism. In subsequent writings, McDougall asserted that Black people are naturally inferior and are biological peril to the United States, and that total racial discrimination or segregation was the single most workable social policy. In a similar manner, Ross supported the supremacy of the Anglo-Saxon and loudly protested against immigration from southern and eastern Europe. Nevertheless, later on, Ross renounced his racist arguments (Deaux & Snyder, 2012, 16). Two prominent psychologists fought against Social Darwinism. They rejected the prevailing theory in a way appropriate to contemporary psychology. According to W.I. Thomas, “if men define situations as real, they are real in their consequences” (Deaux & Snyder, 2012, 16). Furthermore, he believes that it was “the definition of the situation” that provided impetus to personality. He argued that “not only concrete acts are dependent on the situation, but gradually a whole life policy and the personality of the individual himself follow from such a series of definitions” (Deaux & Snyder, 2012, 16). He positively believed that the time will come when individual capabilities will be more important than racial affiliation. He was supported by another psychologist, Charles Cooley, who strongly criticized the disrespect for social forces that proponents of Social Darwinism habitually expressed (Deaux & Snyder, 2012, 16-17). Controversy still plagues Darwin’s influence on psychology because of its negative consequences such as that of the impact of Social Darwinism. Darwin’s theory negatively influenced psychology for its supports a view of human nature that is rooted in genetic determinism, or the assumption that certain attributes are brought about by particular genes with a narrow, restricted role for environmental forces. Darwin’s theory has failed to provide a consolidated or integrated theoretical paradigm for psychology as many of its supported expected it would. Rather, it remains a comparatively independent theoretical perspective, and it usually seems in conflict with other leading paradigms, particularly cultural perspectives and learning frameworks. The main reason Darwin’s theory is unsuccessful is because the early proponents of the paradigm were excessively devoted to a quite strict framework of determinism, which disregards the notion that human capability for culture developed out of a quite broad reasoning process. Evolutionary psychologists currently differentiated their field from others who examine evolutionary features of human behavior and provoked a forceful reaction from evolutionary anthropologists, who examine human beings from behavioral ecological points of view (Hergenhahn, 2008). There are a number of issues in the evolutionary psychology model of human behavior. Above all, evolutionary psychology shuns formal paradigms facilitating examination of the compromises in fitness when an action is risky with regard to a particular selection force but favorable with regard to another. A typical case in point is related to strange and complex attributes in one sex that raise the susceptibility of human beings to predators, but also enhance their mating chances (Vincent & Brown, 2005). This fitness compromises are widespread occurrences in contemporary evolutionary research of lower animal forms, hence it is sensible that the very unpredictable behavior of human beings should also be subjected to descriptive frameworks of fitness compromises. Moreover, Darwin’s theory excessively depends on concepts of adaptation and adaptive failures. This is a weakness. Dependence on the assertion that one must view psychological processes as developed or evolved answers to adaptive difficulties in the distant past in fact restricts any examination of how selection really operates, in the remote past or at present (Buss, 2005). Dependence on premise about selection forces that worked in previous environments differentiate evolutionary psychology, not just from other fields focused on human behavior evolution, but also from contemporary evolutionary biology. In any case, people have not yet invented a time machine; hence, many proponents of evolutionary biology deduce evolutionary mechanism from thorough exploration of biological patterns or exploration of assumptions in observational contexts of how Darwinian arguments operate in current groups and societies. Conclusions Assertions of the selective forces supporting a specific psychological attribute in previous environments are probable predictions, although they are informed predictions. These predictions make doubtful proponents of evolutionary theory anxious, because they seem resistant to firmly deductive tests. Ultimately, the assumption of Darwin’s theory that the implicit cluster of selection forces operating on particular attributes may be partial or imperfect. It is still uncertain that human beings have an exact list of the selective forces that would have led to the prevailing or most vital processes of human psychology. References Buss, D. (2005). The Handbook of Evolutionary Psychology. UK: John Wiley & Sons. Deaux, K. & Snyder, M. (2012). The Oxford Handbook of Personality and Social Psychology. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Hergenhahn, B.R. (2008). An Introduction to the History of Psychology. Mason, OH: Cengage Learning. Jackson, J. (2013). Social Psychology, Past and Present: An Integrative Orientation. Hillsdale, NJ: Psychology Press. Vincent, T. & Brown, J. (2005). Evolutionary Game Theory, Natural Selection, and Darwinian Dynamics. UK: Cambridge University Press. Read More