I’ll be reviewing Edward O. Wilson’s “The Social Conquest of
Earth” soon on my Books blog, but I wanted to point out quickly that his ideas
about “group selection” and “eusociality” don’t at all imply a negative
attitude toward LGBT people or subculture as somehow overly individualistic.
On p. 253, he does take up the Vatican idea that all
sexuality must be linked to openness to procreation and taking on
responsibility for the next generation. He first discusses that notion with
respect to contraception. Women, through
evolution, developed a way to enjoy pleasure outside of reproductive function,
so that, he argues, men would have an incentive to stay with their partners
long enough to raise children (that is, for a couple decades). Of course, logically Wilson’s argument
doesn’t exclude the Catholic idea that one should be open to procreation
whenever it is possible.
He then makes kindly remarks about homosexual capacity (and
refers to “homophobia” as such), which seems (if you think about it) to be
hardwired, too. He says that “committed
homosexuality … is heritable” – that’s the immutability (aka equal protection)
argument. He then does make the
“altruism” argument that is not really new, but perhaps casts it in a new
light. That is, society as a whole needs enough men and enough women to develop
certain sorts of personality and intellectually creative traits that the group
as a whole benefits in terms of culture, and development of these traits
requires openness to some homosexual expression. That’s pretty much a restatement of the
Rosenfels Polarity Theory.
Part of the problem comes about in whether procreation is an
“individually selfish” or a “group altruistic” activity. In modern society, it switches back and forth
between both. Some people see having
children as an expression of who they are; others see potential dependents as
economic “burdens” and hindrances to other kinds of self-fulfillment. The latter is obviously a great concern in
Vatican thinking. To the extent that
raising a new generation and taking care of a previous one are common
responsibilities, no one should get out of participating in them. But then this turns the spin into saying
something like, no one should get out of the military draft if defending the
country is needed (hence the wrap around on “don’t ask don’t tell”).
My own take on this is that I don’t sense a reproductive
urge (or potential biological progeny) as part of myself; I have become aware of it intellectually, partly when
forced to (as an only child, I let the lineage of my parents expire), and also
my “future” as I grow older, elderly. I di feel like I kibitz (to borrow a term
from chess tournaments) the “desirability” of other (males) who do want to
continue the species. In an abstract way
this may be good, that somebody “keeps ‘em honest” or helps set “higher
standards” for the people of the future, or it may tend toward a belief in
eugenics, a dark side. When people don’t
directly harm others, we’re not supposed to interfere with their lives, unless
they are evading responsibility or following a path that is inherently
attractive to others. If a tendency is “heritable”,
then it isn’t like to become copied by too many others. But even if a tendency expresses or is
predicated upon a desire that, if it could be carried out, could have a
negative impact on the futures of many other people, then society is likely to
want to oppose it. That’s the impression
that I got from my NIH days in 1962. Again, such a (visually based) “interest”
is not likely to be copied.
In sum, though "eusociality" (as Wilson describes it), is not hostile to the "individualistic exceptionalism" and hyperselectivity often found in the gay world. In fact, individual diversity is itself a component of group well-being.
Last night (to change the subject), I visited Remington’s in
the SE Capitol area of Washington DC.
It’s “the” country-western bar, not my personally favorite type (unless
it’s big on the scale of the “Roundup” in Dallas, which mixes its menu with
more conventional disco on Saturday nights).
I went upstairs for a while to see the Karaoke, and when I came
downstairs, there was a critical medical emergency somewhat away from the dance
floor. Since 1973, this has never
happened when I personally was in a bar, although I have read about it
happening somewhere once a year or so.
(In London, I saw a fight in a Soho bar in 1982.) The dancing was still going on but soon stopped,
and emergency personnel arrived.
Afterwards, people just gradually started to filter out downstairs. The “lesson”: listen to Sanjay Gupta on
CNN. Be very careful with alcohol and certain
prescription drugs (let alone illegals).
Even with a young person the combination just could cause a cardiac
arrest. Will bars some day be required to have defibrillators on site?
No comments:
Post a Comment