he Darwinian View of Progress: Reply to Guha

8/12/2019 he Darwinian View of Progress: Reply to Guha

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/he-darwinian-view-of-progress-reply-to-guha 1/6

The Darwinian View of Progress: Reply to GuhaAuthor(s): Amartya SenSource: Population and Development Review, Vol. 20, No. 4 (Dec., 1994), pp. 866-870Published by: Population CouncilStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2137666 .

Accessed: 31/08/2011 15:52

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Population Council is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Population and

Development Review.

http://www.jstor.org

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=popcouncil

http://www.jstor.org/stable/2137666?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

http://www.jstor.org/stable/2137666?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=popcouncil



The Darwinian View ofProgress:Reply to Guha

AMARTYA SEN

IN MY ESSAY On the Darwinian view of progress, I argued that whileDarwin's pioneering analysis ofhow evolution works is thoroughlypro-found both in interpretingwhat is goingon in the world and in opening upa powerful general line of reasoning, the profundityof that scientificachievement may make us overlook the dubious nature of some of thenormative components ofDarwin's view of progress. n particular, triedto discuss how Darwin's general idea ofprogress .. can have the effect fmisdirecting ur attention, n ways that are crucial in the contemporary

world (Sen 1993: 123).AbhijitGuha's Comment in this ssue of the Reviewnot onlymisstates

my contentions (forone thing,makes me sound anti-Darwinian in gen-eral,which is absurd), but also misdescribesDarwin's own analyses.

Darwinian progress:Own use and world view

I beginwithone of Guha's misreadingsofmycontentions.He says:

Sen's use ofthe term progress, hichhe claims ohave derived rom ar-win, s unlikeDarwin's use of the term. t is doubtfulwhetherDarwinem-ployedthe term progress n hisbiological reatise, heOriginfSpecies,nanysocial sense.

At several other places, Guha repeats that Darwin did not apply hisevolutionary deas to social fields as if had maintained the contrary):

There s no evidence hathe [Darwin] ttemptedo translate rom iology osociology, herebymaking rganic volution nd cultural rogress omolo-gousstructuresn a metatheoryn thephilosophy fbiology.Herbert pen-cermight ave done this ndrecently. 0. Wilson, ut not Darwin.

866 POPULATION AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 20, NO. 4 (DECEMBER 1994)





868 THE DARWINIAN VIEW OF PROGRESS: REPLY

we canenvisage: fromhewarofnature, rom amine nd death, hemostexaltedobjectwhichwe arecapable ofconceiving, amely, he productionof the higher nimals,directlyollows Darwin1859: 490). It is not easy

tosee how one canpossibly ake these statementso be free fvalues,andclaim-as Guha does-that I had infused alues in Darwin'svalue-freeanalysis fnatural election.

Preservation ersusselective xtinction

Anothermisdescriptionhat occurs n Guha's Comment s his identifica-tionof Sen's central rgument, hichhe summarizes s: Darwin's pe-

cies-orientederspective.. is noppositiono modern nvironmentalon-servation. herewas a morespecificlaim-not the grandgeneralizationthat Guha attributeso me-that I didmake on the tensionbetween theDarwinianviewand the environmentalist'soncernwithpreserving if-ferent pecies hat rethreatenedwith xtinction Sen 1993: 125). (Eventhat laimcouldhardly e described s my centralrgument -itwas oneofthemany mplicationsfthe Darwinianviewthat discussed.)

To be precise,what did was to dispute possible laim n the oppositedirection:

[I]tmight e temptingo think hat he species-orientedarwinian erspec-tive would be morehelpful han the quality-of-lifeiew in understandingtheenvironmentalist'soncernwith reservingifferentpecies hat re threat-enedwith xtinction.ibid., . 125)

I went on to arguethat his emptationmustbe resisted,ince natural e-

lections choice hroughelectivextinction,and theenvironmentalnter-estin preservinghreatenedpecies must, n this ense,be entirelynon-Darwinian'nspirit ibid., p. 125-126;emphasisnoriginal).nelaboratingthedistinction,citedDarwin's discussion f how theproductionnd ex-tinctionf the past and present nhabitants f the world related o thelaws mpressed n matter ythe Creator Darwin1859:488-489; empha-sisadded).

Confounding onservationwithvarietyMovingfromGuha's misstatementfmy heses,etmenowturn o Guha'ssubstantiveresponseto them. On the subject of the tensionbetweenDarwin'sview ofprogressnd the environmentalist'soncern towhichGuhadevotes he substantial artof hisComment),he argues hat if neconsidersprodigality'nd variation,'henthere s no inherent ontradic-



AMARTYA SEN 869

tion betweenDarwinism nd environmental onservation.Whyso? Be-cause, arguesGuha, ClassicalDarwinism .. makesroomfor hediversityofspecies nd their ariability. urely hisclaim s based on confounding

two differentnvironmentaloncerns, o wit: (1) preservinghreatenedspecies the subject fmy remarks, p. 125-126), and (2) having ampleroom for he existence fa variety fspecies the subjectof Guha's re-marks).

It is indeed obvious that he Darwinian nalysis f simultaneous ur-vivalofdifferentpecies llows roomfor theexistence f a variety fspe-cies, but thatresult houldnotbe confusedwith preservinghreatenedspecies that s, conservinghose pecies hathappento existnowand are

threatenedwith extinction-a subjectofmuchconcern mongenviron-mentalists). uha's arguments based on confusing he existence fa vari-ety f pecies n generalwith hepreservationf pecificpeciesow nexistence.

Confounding eproductiveuccesswithqualityof ife

On thesubject fDarwinian oncentrationnreproductiveuccess o udge

the perfection fthespecies nd to characterizeprogress, uhasays: IagreewithSen thatreproductiveuccessmaynotbe theonlycriterionoreitherprogress' r perfection,'ut the undeniable actsthat uch successis the substratum hose gradualunfolding' one of the lexicalmeaningsofprogress) s basic to the ifeprocesses f all living rganisms,ncludingculture-bearingumans. But this undeniablefact bout the mechanismofchangehasnothing o do with he imitationsf the criterionfprogressthat sbased on thebiological uality-particularlyeproductiveuccess-

of thespecies,rather han thequalityoflifethatthespecies managestolead.I gave various xamplesof this ontrastn my essay. But to illustrate

it from notherdiscussion this time nvolving he relationship etweenfemales nd males),consider hedifferenceetweenmale-dominantpe-cies suchas gorillas nd chimpanzees,where males can be often uite ag-gressive o females, nd otherprimates, uch as lemurs nd bonobos,forwhom that s apparently otthe case ( Feministsnd Darwin 1994). The

relative urvivaldvantagef thesedistinctpecies s surely uitea differentissue from hatof udging he ives ed byfemales s well as males of theserespectivepecies.Thenature f he ives ed canhardly ereduced o udg-ments freproductiveuccess nd survival. hiscontrasts,ofcourse, uiteprofoundnconsideringhe ivesofhumanbeings.

The interestn the actual qualityoflife,defendedbyAristotle ndothers, ields differentriterionfprogress, hichpoints-particularlyn



870 THE DARWINIAN VIEW OF PROGRESS: REPLY

thecase ofhumanbeings-to theneed to consider djusting heworld nwhichwe livetoimprove urquality f ife. n applyingucha criterion-sensitive othequality f ife ed-we would no doubtbe interested,nter

alia,in the mechanismshat go withnatural election nd evolution,butthatwould notmake thedivergentriteriafprogress oincide.

Confounding arwinwithMalthus

Finally,Guha misdescribesgain when he says: Sen clubsDarwinwithMalthus nd labels bothas indifferento remediable eprivations'n hu-mansocieties. did no suchthing,nd it s notsurprisinghatGuhacon-

fines imselfomaking hatnaccurateccusation, atherhan ctually uot-ing me on thesubject.Malthus ndmanyMalthusians avewrittenhingson this ubject n a waythatDarwinneverhad.

I suppose Guha'smistake risesfromhisconfusion etween 1) theclaim,which nevermade, that Darwinwas indifferento 'remediabledeprivations'nhumansocieties as Guhaputs t)and (2)theactual claimthat didmakethatDarwin'scriterion fprogress endsto draw ourat-tentionwayfrom he need toadjustthe world n whichwe live a limi-tation hat s particularlyellingnthecontemporaryorld, iven hepreva-lenceof remediableeprivations ) Sen 1993: 136; firstmphasis dded).That imitation oes stand,but thisdoes not ndicate hatDarwinhimselfwas inanyway ndifferentodeprivationsufferedyhumanbeings I amnot aware ofany evidencewhatsoever n thatdirection).Withsuchde-fenders, arwindoesnot-it wouldseem-need any critic.

References

Darwin, Charles. 1859. On theOrigin fSpecies yMeans ofNatural Selection r thePreservationfFavouredRaces n theStruggle or Life.London: John Murray. Facsimile of the FirstEdi-tion,Cambridge, Mass.: HarvardUniversityPress, 1964.

Feminists and Darwin. 1994. TheNew YorkTimes, 1 June, Science Times, pp. C 1, C13.Mayr,Ernst. 1991. OneLongArgument. ambridge,Mass.: Harvard UniversityPress.Sen, Amartya. 1993. On the Darwinian view ofprogress, Population nd Developmenteview

19: 123-137.

Documents

he Darwinian View of Progress: Reply to Guha