M6. Some Strong Voices of the Nineteenth Century

Darwin (1809-1882)

Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution did much to unsettle the previous understanding of human origins, biology and behavior. When adapted, the theory of natural selection and its implications seriously challenged traditional biblical beliefs and was further adapted by Herbert Spencer to describe social class relations under the rubric of “the survival of the fittest.” Social and economic theorists seemed to have found justification of why some in society outpace and dominate others and what constituted a “natural order” to the class structure in society. Racial exploitation could now be supported as meeting the criteria of scientific theory. Social Darwinism supported previous prejudices about race and class. (Appleman, 2001).

Is human nature simply composed of drives for survival and reproduction? This outlook is provocatively expressed by the title of Richard Dawkins 1976 bestseller The Selfish Gene. In the evolutionary perspective, whatever altruism is included as part of human nature, is simply a strategic means of achieving the entirely non-altruistic end of passing on ones genes. In the Darwinian view, sex and aggression are both powerfully present in human nature because they both serve reproduction. Competition, dominance, and even killing, could be seen as natural and perhaps unavoidable aspects of human nature.(Dawkins, 2016). .

Pavlov

Other challenges to reason came from philosophy, psychology and science. Where Darwin questioned whether homo sapiens were in fact superior or categorically different from other animals, Russian physician Ivan Pavlov (1849 – 1936) experimentally explored how humans, like other animals responded behaviorally to certain stimuli. For Pavlov operant conditioning was part of human behavior. Learning took place as a process of rewards and punishments, good behavior being rewarded and its opposite being punished. Behaviorism asserted that responses to stimuli and condition were what accounted for human behavior rather than reason. (Fancher, 1979).

Freud

Sigmund Freud Vienna also challenged the conventions of reason via his own psychodynamic approach to psychology. Freud felt the unconscious held the key to understanding human motives and drives which often were in conflict with reason and moral consciousness. For Freud, mental disorder was a tension between natural drives and individual or social constraints placed on persons. His search for an explanation to human behavior and a theory of the mind was a consequence of the scientific milieu in the late nineteenth and twentieth centuries. (Fancher, 1979).

Nietzsche

Fellow German Friedrich Nietzsche (1844 – 1900) worked to upset the religious, social and philosophical cart of the day by criticizing society’s faith in reason, progress, democracy and religion as weak, self-deceiving sources of a bourgeois culture. In his writings Nietzsche exalted the theme of liberation from the conventions of history and received tradition. Only one’s strength of character and will to break with convention freed a person to succeed in the world.(Richardson & Leiter, 2006).

These were among some of the new ways of seeing human behavior and the social structures created in response to changes in history’s progression. They significantly differed from those voiced prior to the Industrial Revolution. The winds of chaos that seemed to lay behind such rapid political, social, scientific change into the twentieth century brought whirlwinds of social upheaval and military destruction – even in an age envisioned for progress and human perfectibility (Richardson & Leiter, 2006).

Ancient Western Precursor’s to Darwin’s Theory of Evolution

The idea that various attributes of plants and animals (including human beings) are passed on to successive generations through reproduction is evident in the writings of ancient Greek and Roman scientists and philosophers. After all, it reflects the common sense observation that each distinct species of organism appears to make reliable copies of itself through reproduction. Therefore, it stood to reason that there must be some mechanism or intelligence responsible for the faithful replication of each organism’s features and traits. But what accounts for the transmission of these “innate” (i.e. present from birth) characteristics (“History of Evolution,” n.d.)?

The Greek philosopher and scientist Aristotle (384-322 BCE) was a careful observer of natural phenomena. Because many of the characteristics of the various living organisms he studied appeared to possess a clear functional purpose, he believed that their emergence and development could not be random must be driven by some higher purpose or “final cause”. (“History of Evolution,” n.d.)

In contrast to this teleological view of nature, reproduction, and development, Diestrum and other ancient Greeks atomists proposed that the material world and nature consists of various combinations of tiny particles that combine by chance to produce natures various organisms naturally– that is, without a “final cause” or higher purpose. This philosophical attitude of naturalism was expressed in the Roman Lustier’ On the Nature of Things (60 B.C.E.) in which he argues against Aristotle’s teleological view: “Nothing in the body is made that we may use it. What happens to exist is the cause of its use”. Thus for Aristotle form followed function while for Lectures function followed form. This debate between teleology and naturalism is still with us today. (“History of Evolution,” n.d.)

It would be hard to exaggerate the impact of Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution as initially set forth in The Origins of the Species published in 1859. To his extensive travels and detailed observations of both common and unusual species of plants and animals, Darwin applied a brilliant and original intellect to arrive at the astonishing insight that all of the planet’s millions of species – including man – had evolved from a common origin as simple single cell organism through a slow but relentless process of genetic mutation and natural selection. Just as before Galileo’s heliocentric description of the solar system, human civilization had imagined that its world stood at the very center of the universe only to discover that it was but a small planet revolving around an enormous fiery sun, Darwin’s theory of evolution dethroned the human species from it’s privileged place in the traditional biblical account  (i.e. as unique and qualitatively different from all other animals). Darwin’s contention that we are descended from apes shocked, offended, and deeply disturbed the Victorian society of his day. (“History of Evolution,” n.d.)

Illustrations of dog and human embryos, looking almost identical at 4 weeks then differing at 6 weeks, shown above a 6-week turtle embryo and 8-day hen embryo, presented by Haeckel in 1868 as convincing proof of evolution. The pictures of the earliest embryonic stages are now considered inaccurate.

Meanwhile, 19th century scientists had become intrigued with the observation that the embryos of various animals, including human beings, appeared highly similar, even identical, only to diverge and develop into morphologically (i.e. relating to shape) distinct species with further fetal development. Thus the embryo and early fetus of a pig and a human being are indistinguishable. The parallels between evolution and embryonic development were obvious; all of life, both entire species and individual organisms, seemed to grow from simple, common forms into complex, highly differentiated forms. This lead to Fritz Muller (1821-1897) and Ernst Haeckel’s (1834-1919) theory of recapitulationism, the view that the development of individual organisms parallels or repeats the development of species through evolution. Or, to put it even more succinctly: ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny.

Darwin’s theory of evolution, the new embryology and the new insights into genetics developed by Gregor Mendel (1822-1884) together posed a sharp challenge to the Lockean paradigm of the blank slate. While the blank slate directed attention to the power and importance of environmental influences and learning, evolution and genetics implied the robustness of innate characteristics and their transmission through breeding. The next step was inevitable. If, with the new insights into genetics and selective breeding, various plant and animal species could be manipulated and improved, then why not human beings? Darwin’s half-cousin, Francis Galton (1822-1911) became interested in the heritability of human traits, especially intelligence, and their enhancement through social policies that promoted selective breeding. Galton’s eugenics(which, Latin for “good breeding”) movement also seemed to reflect and provide a scientific justification for the highly stratified class society in which he lived. In time, the wide influence of his views lead to programs of forced sterilization of “undesirables” throughout Europe and the United States. At its height, 30 US states had passed laws supporting the practice of involuntary sterilization of individuals and groups deemed to be genetically “unfit”. Even more ominously, eugenics became a central feature of the Nazi theories of Aryan “racial purity” that lead to the brutal persecution and eventual mass extermination of the Jews and other minorities such as the Gypsies, Slavs, and even homosexuals in Hitler’s death camps. Another aspect of this fascist ideology was borrowed from Herbert Spencer’s (1820-1903) extensive writings on “progress” which argued that, like individuals, cultures evolve and compete with the best emerging as dominant according to his principle of “survival of the fittest”. The Nazis appealed to this social darwinist perspective to fuel their German chauvinism and to justify their invasion and subjugation of what they regarded as inferior peoples and cultures. This obvious and chilling lesson in the potentially devastating consequences of scientific sounding ideas about genetics, evolution, and “progress” dealt an enormous blow to the credibility and appeal of the nature side of the nature vs. nurture debate in the years following World War II.

Sigmund Freud and Carl Jung

Sigmund Freud

Although, as a secular Jew and man of science, Freud (1856-1939) was pointedly irreligious, the theory he developed contains many parallels with the earlier Judeo-Christian beliefs about human nature that we have been exploring. Freud’s infant is neither a Lockean blank slate nor the Romantic innocent depicted by Rousseau but, as he put it, “pure Id”, a seething cauldron of sexual and aggressive drives that must be tamed and properly channeled for a civilized human being to develop (Frey-Rohn & Engreen, 1990).

Group photo in front of Clark University: Front row: Sigmund Freud, G. Stanley Hall, C. G. Jung; Back row: Abraham A. Brill, Ernest Jones, Sándor Ferenczi. Photo taken for Clark University.

In his early experiences as a practicing psychiatrist, Freud initially came to believe that his (most often female) patients’ “hysteria” had been caused by early traumatic experiences of sexual molestation that had been repressed by the conscious mind. Although there continues to be controversy about his motives for changing his views, Freud suddenly rejected this earlier “seduction theory” and argued that most hysteria and other neurotic symptoms were not caused by repressed traumas but by the repressed sexual and aggressive fantasies of his patients. In his view, persons became neurotic and psychologically ill because of unconscious desires that were unacceptable to their conscious and more civilized selves (Frey-Rohn & Engreen, 1990).

In Civilization and Its Discontents (1930), Freud expands on this pessimistic view arguing that neurosis is the inevitable and necessary price that man must pay for living within the moral constraints of civilization. Unlike Rousseau and his intellectual heirs who would argue that removing social constraints would free human nature to meet its full potential, Freud believed such ideas to be dangerous nonsense. Having witnessed the massive and seemingly senseless slaughter of the First World War followed by the rise of Nazism and the persecution of his fellow Jews, Freud became even more convinced of the deeply destructive aspects of human nature. Earlier, in Beyond the Pleasure Principle (1920), Freud amended his drive theory to include not just aggression but a death instinct that operated in dynamic tension with the sexually charged life instinct of libido or Eros (Frey-Rohn & Engreen, 1990)..

The parallels between Freud’s views and the traditional Judeo-Christian outlook are striking. Human nature is conflicted between selfish desires and the moral aspirations of the conscience. Left to its own, mankind is likely to self-destruct. But while Freud saw neurosis as the necessary price of civilization, many scholars have argued that the impact of Freudian psychology has been to eventually undo many of the social and moral constraints that Freud took for granted and usher in a more permissive society. While in the traditional Judeo-Christian view, the conscience had been seen as simply the internal awareness of God’s moral will, Freud’s version of conscience – the superego – is described as an internalization of parental influences. In its quest to help the Ego accept parts of the self that are disowned due to the moral emotions of guilt and shame, Psychoanalysis and the entire modern therapy movement has sought to shrink the internalized parent represented by the superego and to diminish what it has regarded as the toxic effects of exaggerated guilt and shame. This “triumph of the therapeutic” as Phillipe Reiss memorably put it in his book of that name, played a significant role in the profound cultural shift expressed in the sexual revolution of the 1960’s in which Americans and Europeans decried previous constraints and taboos as so many unnecessary “hang ups”. As the hippie’s of the 1960’s proclaimed: “If it feels good, do it!” Here the influence of Rousseau has inserted itself into Freud’s psychotherapeutic project and changed its basic outlook and aims (Frey-Rohn & Engreen, 1990).

Carl Jung

The work of one of Freud’s early followers Carl Jung (1875-1961) deserves mentioning. Jung split with Freud over his drive theory which Jung regarded as too narrow and reductionist. Instead, Jung developed a psychology based on universal human motives and “complexes” that are expressed in various archetypes that appear universally in various myths and folk tales. In Jung’s model of the self, each person contains what he referred to as a “shadow” which contains the dark feelings, desires, and motives that are often viewed as unacceptable. Jung believed that if we don’t face and accept these shadow elements of our personality then we are likely to project them onto others who we then condemn and even persecute. Jung’s notion of “the Shadow” echoes an earlier insight expressed in the New Testament parable in which Jesus (Matt. 7:3) cautions his listeners to acknowledge the “log” in their own eye before focusing on and condemning the “speck of dust” in the eye of a brother (Frey-Rohn & Engreen, 1990).

Perspectives on Human Behavior from Multiple Disciplines

In the oral cultures of the pre-historic past, individuals were educated, trained and mentored by persons of learning, wisdom and experience, often one on one. With the rise of societies in which teachers and students were free from the tasks of survival, groups of learners gathered under the tutelage of those more learned and studied subjects that were deemed worthy of pursuing. By the 4th century B.C.E., public places of learning in Greece, such as the Academy founded by Plato and the Lyceum founded later by Aristotle, were informal gatherings in which dialectic methods were used to fathom problems and issues of life, as well as subjects such as rhetoric, mathematics, and astronomy. This perhaps begins the professionalization of teaching and the educational process. Myth has it that above the entrance to Plato’s Academy were inscribed the words, “Let none but Geometers enter here.” The origins of formal educational training go deep into Western civilization (Hutchison, 2003).

With the rise of scientific inquiry as a new path for seeking out the mysteries and workings of the universe, came the creation of scientific disciplines that branched into various and ever widening fields: such as physics, chemistry, biology, astronomy, and engineering. Social sciences by the 19th century were also beginning to form to pursue a variety of disciplinary directions, incorporating scientific approaches. Thus psychology, sociology, anthropology, linguistics and others formed with agreed upon curricula, professional societies and published journals to share their findings and theories in a peer-reviewed process modeled by the Royal Society (Hutchison, 2003).

A brief overview of these social science disciplines and their origins is presented:

Psychology – Wilhelm Wundt is credited with the first experimental approach to psychology in 1879 when he created a laboratory to conduct experiments to study human behavior as a way to understand the inner workings of the mind. The field quickly moved from a branch of philosophy to its own professional and scientific study. It drew a significant number of practitioners working in a number of “schools” that provided a variety of approaches to the study of human behavior. (Stranger & Walinga, 2010).

Sociology – Sociology is the study of how one’s social surroundings influence human thought and behavior. The age of exploration brought Europeans in contact with very different cultures in Africa, Asia and the Americas. Diverse social customs and practices were observed and invited study of how social environments impacted actions and behaviors. Frenchman August Compte (1798 – 1857) is credited with first using the term sociology in the 1830’s in promoting the formal study of human activity from all areas that shed knowledge on how humans acted. By studying ‘laws’ that governed society, he felt sociologists could address areas where social problems exist, including those of poverty and education. Compte called the scientific study of these social patterns “positivism” (“The History of Sociology, “n.d.).

Anthropology – Anthropology’s source of inquiry is culture rather than society. Anthropology is the scientific study of patterns of human behavior and the material and non-material aspects of culture that are grounded in custom, learned, and passed on. Material culture comprises the physical objects that are used and valued by members of a culture: their objects of worship, eating utensils, written materials, dwellings and the like. Non-material culture embraces attitudes, ideas, beliefs, and customs that individuals hold to and are shaped by. These two aspects of study vary among and within cultures in specific and characteristic ways. Interest in anthropology as a discipline goes back to classical Greece and the writings of Herodotus who investigated and wrote about cultural differences among those living in Persia. Modern anthropology traces its roots in the scientific approaches to human biology and cultural evolution. The influences of Charles Darwin and his theory of human biological evolution, the discovery of the remains of ancient humans extending back into human history, and new theories about the age of the earth, were all significant in the formation of modern anthropology. Some early practitioners of the discipline were called “armchair anthropologists” for their penchant to study material collections of missionaries and traders. The 19th  century Englishmen E.B. Taylor and J.G. Frazer were among this group who wrote about their theories. French intellectual and philosopher Claude Levi-Strauss was the foremost 20th century anthropologist who first worked in South America and is credited with being the founder of Structuralism. (” Introduction to Anthropology,” 2003). 

Linguistic Study – A branch of anthropology is linguistic anthropology which studies the influence of language on the social life of individuals and the way culture, the environment, cultural beliefs and individuals themselves are shaped by language. The modern scientific study of language emerged from the related studies of philosophy, rhetoric and literary analysis, all of which in different ways sought to understand how language functioned. During the 18th century, scholars made the discovery of the Proto-Indo-European origins of numerous contemporary and historic languages. Scholars who were linguists began to study how this 6000-year-old original language came down via linguistic family trees and developed into a host of later languages. Swiss linguist Ferdinand de Saussure inspired the formation of structural linguistics which looked at the means by which the rules and principles of grammar developed historically. This proved useful as a tool to investigate both written and non-written languages and their structure (Newmeyer, n.d.).

The Rise of Professionalism

The background to the rise of professional societies is linked closely to the spirit of progress and education in the 19th century.

Spanning the Civil War to the First World War, the rise of American professionalism brought about the model of a modern career: a vocation that claims service, not moneymaking, as its aim; that privileges expertise; that defines and protects systems of education that confer such expertise; and that takes for granted the professional’s desire for upward mobility (Cognard-Black, 2019).

Gaining respect and wider recognition, professional organizations within various disciplines came to flourish in post-Civil War America. Many of those well recognized today had their beginning in the mid to late nineteenth century. Among these were: the American Psychological Association (current name – 1844), American Medical Association (1847), American Bar Association (1878), American Language Association (1883), American Historical Association (1884), American Economics Association (1888), National Institute of Arts and Letters (1898), American Public Health Association (1899), and Association of American Law Schools (1900) (Cognard, 2019).

The common goals of these organizations were: to certify and regulate members through membership, meetings, and hierarchical infrastructure; to spread the aims and ideology of their professions through juried journals; and to establish an advocacy presence in policy-making bodies to help advance their professional standing and goals. (See Professionalism at Encyclopedia.com.)