Man, Beast and Zombie: What Science Can and Cannot Tell Us About Human Nature [Englisch] [Gebundene Ausgabe]

Is there such a thing? And if so how has this contributed to our confusion in defining ourselves? Pick one: man, beast or Zombie. Notice that I said pick one while Malik's title MAN, BEAST, AND ZOMBIE implies that the choices are not mutually exclusive; choosing all three is a valid selection. I'll defer to Malik and simply say that he's convincing with his arguments in this well written and thoughtful book.

Malik's main purpose with this book is to show that much of our current thinking about human nature is incorrect. The focus is on evolutionary theory, sociobiology, evolutionary psychology, and cognitive science. Malik highlights the areas within each field that are seemingly in agreement on what makes us human, but the real value of this book, and what Malik does exceptionally well, is show how the abiding contradictions are largely steeped in politics and that by understanding this we can emerge with a clear idea of human nature. Far from arguing that science has contributed to a dehumanizing vision of ourselves and that genetic determinism and Darwinism is off, Malik says it's "mostly right" but that "when it comes to the science of Man" things are different. Malik shows how one can support Darwinism but still have a humanistic view of our nature. He's certainly not saying that science is a social construction, but he also does not agree with Daniel Dennett who explains all mental and social aspects of humanity in mechanistic terms as adaptations of evolution. In Malik's capable hands the divide between evolutionary psychology and sociobiology is illuminated and is seen in terms of a philosophical and political argument, but one that is still about the same underlying evolutionary truth. The same can be said for the seeming uncrossable chasm between evolutionary psychology and cognitive ethology. Malik himself takes a position. He sides with Dennett and says that animal behavior tells us nothing about human nature and that studying modern hunter-gatherers can't tell us much about stone-age man. He spends a bit of time refuting Jared Diamond's arguments and pretty much ignores cognitive ethologists. Malik believes that the idea of "self" or consciousness is created by language and thus defines what makes humans unique. Malik's view however is no more than just another position, as is any other, on the same philosophical/political spectrum.

This book is a very useful contribution to the ongoing debate about human nature. It is eloquent in arguing against a deterministic, materialistic, and mechanistic view of humanity. Equally cogently argued is Malik's belief that we should steer clear of an overly humanistic view that borders on mysticism. I'm not disappointed that Malik doesn't (or can't) define an ideal resting point, as it simply proves that reality remains a mix of both the physical and that which is in the consciousness. And where we place reality is still a function of where each of us sits on that all important philosophical/political spectrum.

Ever since Richard Dawkins preached modern 'Neo-Darwinism' in his book, 'The Selfish Gene', a tremendous debate has been raging in academic departments, and amoungst the general public, as to how influential the entities we call 'genes' are in determining human nature. .....

Those who know their history will recall that the current debates about genetics seem disturbingly close sometimes to the ideas about race, genetics and human nature in the early 20th century which ultimately culminated in nightmarish and barbaric events such as the forced sterilisation of 'unfit' people, even in bastions of freedom like America and Europe, and in Nazi Germany, the attempted extermination of an entire people solely on the base of their 'race.' Malik's study attempts to understand the intellectual and historical basis of these ideas, and updates them in light of recent scientific developments in evolutionary biology.

Malik carefully traces the historical outlines of the debate over exactly what role inheritance plays in human nature, drawing on a remarkably broad and eclectic base of history, philosophy, biology, anthropology and psychology. Malik carefully argues a human nature is not entirely determined by ones genes, but is rather something constructed from both one's genetic inheritance and culture.

What makes this book so good is that Malik presents a balanced assessment of this controversial issue-'nature vs nurture'- without descending into the dismissive, arrogant and narrow viewpoint of an idealogue. His wonderful assessment of one area, sociobiology, and the tragic and colourful human figures who invented it, is just one fine example out of many. It makes a refreshing change from Dawkins or Dennett, or their creationist/constructionist enemies, who seem to base their works on dismissive rhetoric rather than the good, solid argument coloured with sound historical understanding and an awareness of the human condition that characterises Malik.

This book is thoroughly enjoyable and highly recommended for insight into the debates about evolutionary psychology around today.

Many people assume that the only ones who flinch from reductionist accounts of human nature are religious believers who 'lust after skyhooks' pace Dennett and are afraid of losing a sense of mystery, or have a godlike view of human nature they are anxious to preserve. Not so. This book, certainly one of the best introductions and critique of Darwinian theories of human nature on the market, shows that you do not have to be religious to feel concerned (and rightly so) about the extravagant claims of some 'Universal Darwinists' when it comes to what makes us human. Kenan Malik takes us on a fascinating journey into history, revealing the roots of the current obsession with dehumanizing views of human nature. Especially after the 2nd World War many people lost all faith in human decency and thus were more disposed to view people as 'zombies' or 'beasts', essentially survival machines with no higher qualities. Also contributing to the dehumanizing was the struggle of evolutionary biologists to defend the legitimacy of evo-bio as a 'real science' against the imperialist reductionism of molecular biology.

Malik makes observations which should not be overlooked or taken for granted by anyone interested in what it means to be human. He rightly observes that at the root of the current confusion over human nature is our lack of a way to conceive of ourselves as both subject and object; as a subject we are (presumably) social, reflexive, rational beings who have real responsibility and agency, but as objects we are obviously biological machines, made of hydrocarbons and molded through natural selection. To study human nature scientifically is to encounter this paradox at its most profound, since in this case we are both the subject performing the inquiry and the object of our investigation. He is surely right that while human beings are immanent in nature, in the sense that we and our minds are products of biological evolution, we are also in some sense transcendent to it, as revealed by our ability to do science. For many modern thinkers the temptation is just too great to deny human transcendence and view human beings solely as objects, even though this view is self-refuting: if we are just biological machines obeying the dictates of genes and culture, how do we know that science isn't just another adaptive fiction? How we make sense of ourselves as rational creatures?

Interestingly, although Malik makes telling, scientifically informed (he is a research psychologist) critiques of current trends in evolutionary psychology and stresses the need to hold a view of human nature adequate to our self-understanding as rational, responsible creatures, he does not go very far in resolving the paradox he reveals. He makes some interesting remarks on the need for a theory of 'social selection', the semiotic capacities of language and the 'extended mind' all of which are probably in the right direction, but his own account of human distinctiveness falls short of his own goal. Clearly we still have a long way to go in our study of human nature.

The one glaring omission in this otherwise magisterial manifesto is attention to religious perspectives on human nature. Beliefs about the soul are mentioned only in passing in his historical analysis, and Malik does not consider the possibility that religious perspectives, such as the Christian theory of human nature, might go a long way towards resolving the paradox of object/subject distinction. Indeed, Malik almost betrays a religious orientation himself, but in the end affirms his belief in the Enlightenment ideal of human goodness, which may be, in the words of Jeffrey Burton Russell, "the most counterfactual idea in human history".

All in all an enormously important, controversial book which has not received its due attention because of the celebrity-mongering of Darwinian superstars like Steven Pinker and Jared Diamond. One can only hope that more people will read this book and start asking questions before the view of man-as-zombie or man-as-beast becomes too firmly entrenched in our cultural understanding, with possibly disastrous consequences. Finally, it has great potential, which is not recognized by its author, to harmonize religious and scientific perspectives on human nature. Our self-understanding as rational, responsible creatures is simply not up for grabs, something that religious voices in the science-religion dialogue have been stressing for decades. Another highly recommended, indispensable read.