NOTE: This paper has been
submitted to Monthly Review as a response to Richard YorkÕs article, ÒHomo
Floresiensis and Human Equality:
Enduring Lessons from Stephen Jay Gould,Ó in the March 2005 issue of Monthly
Review. YorkÕs article may be found at: http://www.monthlyreview.org/0305york.htm.
*******************************************************
On humans and hobbits
Eugene
E. Ruyle
************************************************
Eugene E. Ruyle is
semi-retired from teaching anthropology at California State University, Long
Beach. His paper ÒLabor, People, Culture: A Labor Theory of Human OriginsÓ was
published in the Yearbook of Physical Anthropology in 1976. Since then he has published various other
articles on Anthropology and Marxism. He played a significant role in
protecting the sacred creation center of Puvungna, on the Cal State Long Beach
campus, from being bulldozed for a strip mall.
************************************************
Richard YorkÕs article (Monthly Review, March 2005) on the discovery of a fossil hominid on
the Indonesian island of Flores raises significant issues which merit the
attention of Marxists.
Two areas of YorkÕs discussion are problematic. The first
is YorkÕs apparent denial of the lawful and progressive nature of human
evolution. The second is his one-sided treatment of the competing models of
human evolution. Some background is important in order to place these issues in
perspective.
Marx and Engels were avid students of the anthropology of
their day. By applying historical materialism to anthropological data, Marx and
Engels gained insights which continue to enrich our thinking about who we are
and how we got here.
This interest led Engels to write two classics of Marxist
thought: Origin of the Family, Private Property, and the State, and ÒThe Part Played by Labor in the Transition
from Ape to Man.Ó[1]
Few Marxists have attempted to update these important works with modern
anthropological fact and theory, and, with few exceptions, they have been
ignored by anthropologists.[2]
Modern anthropology, including paleoanthropology, continues
to be under the sway of what Engels called Òthat idealistic world outlook:Ó
All merit for the swift advance of civilisation was ascribed to
the mind, to the development and activity of the brain. Men became accustomed
to explain their actions as arising out of thought instead of their needs
(which in any case are reflected and perceived in the mind); and so in the
course of time there emerged that idealistic world outlook which, especially since
the fall of the world of antiquity, has dominated men's minds. It still rules
them to such a degree that even the most materialistic natural scientists of
the Darwinian school are still unable to form any clear idea of the origin of
man, because under this ideological influence they do not recognise the part
that has been played therein by labour.[3]
Almost universally, anthropologists see culture as the
defining feature of our species, and culture is usually seen in an idealistic
way, composed of symbols, ideas, values, and so on. It is rarely acknowledged
that human culture is built on a foundation of labor. For Marx and Engels, it
is precisely labor and social production that serve to define our species:
Men can be distinguished from animals by consciousness, by
religion or anything else you like. They themselves begin to distinguish
themselves from animals as soon as they begin to produce their means of
subsistence.[4]
Engels was even more direct:
First labour, after it and then with it speech -- these were
the two most essential stimuli under the influence of which the brain of the
ape gradually changed into that of man.[5]
Engels wrote before there was any real fossil evidence for
human evolution, but the fossil finds over the last century have confirmed his
insights. What these fossils show is that our bodies became human first, and
only later, after our ancestors began manufacturing stone tools, did our brains
begin to enlarge and become human.
Our earliest human ancestors, known collectively as australopithecines,
lived between about 5 and 2 million years ago. They were small, bipedal
hominids with essentially ape sized brains. One can view them as apes with
human bodies or humans with ape brains. The fact that they were bipedal means
they had already adapted to a way of life that required that the hand be free
to engage in rudimentary labor processes, making and carrying things. This
early productive system involved: 1) making simple tools such as digging sticks
and leaf baskets out of wood, twine, and leaves and using unmodified stones and
other objects as tools, 2) carrying these tools with them on the food quest, 3)
collecting food and carrying it back to a common home base, where 4) food was
shared by members of the group. All of these behaviors are within the
behavioral capabilities of living apes.
What was new is that these early humans were dependent upon this new behavioral way of life. In contrast to
the individual food quest of all other primates, our early ancestors had to
rely on each other in the new ways. To paraphrase Marx, in the social
production of their existence, our early ancestors entered into definite social
relations that were indispensable and independent of their will, relations of
production which corresponded to a definite, though rudimentary, stage in the
development of their material productive forces.
Our dependence on social labor created selective pressures
which transformed our ape-like ancestors into humans. This development took
millions of years to unfold. The adaptive changes required, such as bipedalism
and, later, large brains, were costly and disadvantageous for any way of life
other than one based on social labor. Once we became dependent upon social
production, however, our evolution was lawful and progressive. As Harris notes:
And so had we been present where the forest meets the savanna
one morning five million years ago, we would have caught a glimpse of our
ancestors. Still in shadow, they stood peering anxiously across the bright
panoramas. It would have been easy at a distance to mistake them for a family
of chimpanzees. Except that as they started forward through the grass, they
kept erect. Each of the adults held a pointed stick in one hand. All of history
was there that morning—all that we were to become and still might be.[6]
About two million years ago, our ancestors began making
rudimentary stone tools ushering in the pithecanthropine (aka Homo erectus)
phase of human evolution. Since that time we can see, on the one hand, a
progressive development of the forces of production, as manifest in ever more
finely made stone tools, and on the other, a progressive increase in the size
of the human brain.
Language develops probably rather late in this process. The
connection between language and labor is, first of all, that labor develops the
mental capabilities upon which language is based, and second, labor creates the
need for better communication within a system of social production. As Engels
put it, people finally Òhad something to say to each other.Ó[7]
By about forty thousand years ago, Upper Paleolithic
cultures comparable to those of modern hunters and gatherers appear and,
presumably, the full range of behaviors of modern culture: language, kinship,
religion, art, etc.
Throughout this entire period, our ancestors were
communists.[8]
For millions of years of human evolution, there were, as Engels wrote of the
Iroquois,
No soldiers, no gendarmes or police, no nobles, kings, regents,
prefects, or judges, no prisons, no lawsuits - and everything takes its orderly
course.... All are equal and free - the women included. There is no place yet
for slaves, nor, as a rule, for the subjugation of other tribes.[9]
Humanity evolved under conditions of liberty, equality, and
solidarity in the ancestral commune. By about 30-50,000 years ago, quite likely
earlier, humanity had achieved our present level of mental, physical, and
spiritual capabilities. Since that time, there has been no significance genetic
change in our ability to acquire, use, and develop productive systems and other
aspects of culture. We have continued to evolve, but significant evolutionary
change has been cultural, not genetic.
It is only within the last five or ten thousand years,
after the development of new productive systems based on plant and animal
domestication, that some men began to develop structured systems of inequality
and injustice that have characterized civilization. Slavery, patriarchy,
racism, exploitation, and oppression are not inevitable concomitants of our
human nature, but simply a phase we are passing through.
There are, of course, numerous issues which this overview
sidesteps.
This framework is essential to place the recent discoveries
on the Indonesian island of Flores in perspective. They are indeed surprising.
The remains include a pygmy-size adult female said to have lived as recently as
13,000 years ago. Popularly known as the Hobbit, she is cataloged as LB1, after
the Liang Bua cave in which she was found. The team that discovered her decided
that she represents a new species, Homo floresiensis, descended from Homo
erectus.
Her skull suggests a chimpanzee-sized brain smaller than
any seem among hominids for over two million years. Stone tools comparable to
those of modern humans were also found in the cave, and modern humans also lived
on Flores since it is on the route to Australia peopled some 40,000 years ago.
In YorkÕs view, the Òdiscovery of Homo floresiensis is only
particularly surprising from a bourgeois perspective, with its paradigmatic
assumption that history necessarily unfolds in a progressive manner, leading
inexorably to our contemporary worldÓ (p. 15). York prefers a view he
attributes to Stephen Jay Gould: ÒGould argued that the unfolding of natural
history, and by extension human history, is not properly characterized by a
progressive, directional trend, but rather as a wandering across a landscape of
possibility governed predominantly by happenstance.Ó (p. 16) Thus, York would
have us believe that Òthere is no necessary direction in the evolutionary
processÓ(p.16) and specifically in light of the hobbit: Òthere was clearly no
inherent evolutionary drive toward larger brains among our ancestors.Ó (pp. 17)
I doubt that the founders of historical materialism would
agree with YorkÕs rendition of GouldÕs theory. Here is Engels:
But chance is only the one pole of a relation whose other pole
is named "necessity." In the world of nature, where chance also seems
to rule, we have long since demonstrated in each separate field the inner
necessity and law asserting itself in this chance. But what is true of the
natural world is true also of society.[10]
And from the first animals were developed, essentially by
further differentiation, the numerous classes, orders, families, genera, and
species of animals; and finally mammals, the form in which the nervous system
attains its fullest development; and among these again finally that mammal in
which nature attains consciousness of itself - man.[11]
These views need not be accepted simply because Marx and
Engels said so. For example, Simpson writes:
The record as a whole gave an effect of opportunism, of
divergence into nearly all available ways of life, yet this in itself is an
oriented rather than a random process. Examined in greater detail, the record
seems still less to be purely random and descent within anyone line usually
gives the impression of being rather stringently oriented in many, although
commonly not in all, of its features.[12]
For that matter, even Gould would probably not agree. In
criticizing Lunsden and WilsonÕs claim to have ÒdiscoveredÓ gene-culture
coevolution, Gould wrote:
I don't doubt that something like gene-culture coevolution was
involved in the evolution of our brain. But then Darwin and Haeckel, and all
other major thinkers about human evolution, have made the same argument. In
fact, I don't know that any serious theory other than gene-culture coevolution
has ever been proposed to explain the sequence of upright posture first, brains
later and quickly. The standard account argues that upright posture freed the
hands for development of tools and weapons. This evolving culture of artifacts
and their attendant institutions of hunting, food gathering, or whatever, then
fed back upon our biological (genetic) evolution by setting selection pressures
for an enlarged brain capable of advancing culture still further-in short,
gene-culture coevolution.
Gould then goes on to quote Darwin and some of the passages
from Engels I included above and concludes by noting Òthere is virtually no
other path to followÓ in explaining our large brains.[13]
Evolution moves in the direction of adaptation to
particular behavioral ways of life within particular ecological niches, since,
as Darwin noted, ÒNatural Selection has been the main but not exclusive means
of modification.Ó[14] This may
take different directions for clams, spiders, dolphins, and humans, but the
evolutionary process is a lawful one in each case. There may be wanderings and
quirks, but these do not obscure the general direction of human evolution, as
discussed above.
YorkÕs views on human equality are equally problematic.
York links human equality with a particular model of recent human origins, the
Òout of AfricaÓ theory. The competing model, multiregionalism, is dismissed as
racist:
Scholars in the multiregionalist tradition have long claimed
that modern human populations descended from regional populations of Homo
erectus that evolved in parallel over hundreds of thousands of years, with
modest genetic exchange across populations. MuItiregionalists adhere to the
position that the division of humans into distinct groups (races) is very old,
which implies that genuine biological differences exist among contemporary
races. This perspective parallels a view common before the rise of Darwinism
known as polygenism, which asserted that
each human race was the product of a separate divine creation, and that,
therefore, human races are in fact separate (hierarchically orderable)
biological species. After evolutionary theory became widely accepted,
multiregionalism arose as a scientific version of polygenism. It is important
to note that contemporary supporters of multiregionalism typically deny any
support for racist views or policies and acknowledge the high level of genetic
similarity among human populations, but the multiregionalist position does,
nonetheless, reify divisions of humans into distinct biological races (if not
species). (p. 17)
The combination of recent paleontological and genetic evidence
has made the multiregionalist explanation of human origins increasingly
untenable, supporting, rather, the argument that all modern humans share a very
recent (in geological terms) common ancestor who lived in Eastern or Southern
Africa approximately a quarter of a million years ago and whose descendants
spread out of Africa around 100,000 years ago, eventually replacing all other
human groups. (pp. 17-18)
As Stephen Jay Gould argued two decades ago, human equality is
a contingent fact of history. We could have lived in a world where divisions
among human groups occurred long ago, and, therefore, races were truly
biologically distinct. We do not, however, live in such a world due to the
quirks of history. (p. 18)
This is misleading. It is a mistake to think we have to
accept the ÒOut of AfricaÓ theory, either because it is politically correct or
because certain experts claim the evidence supports it. Multiregionalists could
equally well hurl charges of racism at the Òout of AfricaÓ theory, but this
would not resolve the issue.
Let me propose an alternative view.
Irrespective of which continent they may inhabit, all
living human populations are equally human and equally capable of acquiring and
developing culture, or civilization. Clearly, within each population,
individuals may vary in their mental, physical, and spiritual skills and
abilities, but all efforts to discover any systematic differences between
populations (or ÒracesÓ) in these regards have failed. The search for evidence
of racial inequality within our species has proved even more elusive that the
search for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. It may be added that this
formulation applies not only to populations in different geographical areas,
but also to classes within populations. We are left, then, with human equality
as a scientific reality. Any theory of human evolution must be compatible with
this observed reality.
According to the Out of Africa model, human equality is a
result of the very recent origin and spread of modern humans, too recently for
significant differences to develop.
The multiregional view is more complex and nuanced. We are
at present a polytypic, geographically and biologically diverse species (which
is not to say that ÒraceÓ is a good concept for understanding our diversity).
Within our diversity, however, is a common dependence on culture and social
production. This is what creates our unity and equality. To quote Harris again:
Three forces explain the unity of our species: natural
selection, cultural selection, and migration and gene flow. Sapienization
everywhere led to greater reliance upon culture as a source of adaptive
innovations. Thus human beings were everywhere simultaneously selected for
their ability to live as cultural animals, and this meant selection everywhere
for expanded neural circuitry, vocal capability, and language behavior.[15]
Harris should have added that selection everywhere favored
manual dexterity and other skills in manipulating materials, for living as a
cultural animal means dependence on social labor.
The unity and diversity of our species has been a feature
of the last two million years of our evolution. Throughout this entire period,
we have been what we are today, a single, diverse species, unified by our
common humanity.
The diversity of our species flows from our geographical
dispersal over first three and then six continents. Our unity and equality has
been maintained through uniform selective pressures and gene flow.
In this view, diversity, both physical and cultural, is
something to be embraced, not feared. It does not lead to extermination or
extinction, but rather contributes to the progressive development of our
species.
Many paleoanthropologists would disagree with this view
and, along with Gould and York, prefer to think that humanity was divided into
as many as three different species as recently as 40,000 years ago, and that
all but one died off or were killed off.
I find such a scenario highly unlikely. It takes a long
period of isolation for species to develop, Òperhaps a million years or more in
mammals, on the average.Ó[16]
I know of no one who has argued that any human population has been isolated for
that long, in Africa or elsewhere. If they could interbreed, chances are they
did, and they were not separate species.
Current paleoanthropological opinions must be taken
seriously, of course, but we are not obligated to adopt them as our own.
Paleoanthropology is a contentious field whose history has been marked by
jealousies, squabbling, and fraud. The sophistication of its data collection
and analysis is not matched by a corresponding conceptual clarity. Wolpoff has
complained that most opponents of multiregionalism simply do not understand it,[17]
and even Gould complained that multiregionalism Òis awfully hard to fathom.Ó[18]
Our evolution from an ape-like ancestor took several
million years and was spread out over three continents. Trying to reconstruct
the details of our evolution is like trying to reconstruct the Encyclopedia
Britannica from scraps of a couple of dozen randomly torn out pages.
Caution is certainly in order, and openness. Gould noted
that he would be Òwilling to wagerÓ on some variant of the Out of Africa model,
but he ÓwonÕt be shocked if ...
multiregionalism triumphsÓ (1994:21).[19]
Such openness is rare and refreshing.
In any event, IÕm not sure there are any real political or
philosophical issues to be settled by the debate between the Multiregional and
Out of Africa models. Neither the evidence nor our commitment to human equality
requires us to adopt one rather than another, and both are compatible with the
labor theory of human origins.
Perhaps the Out of Africa theorists are correct and we are
all descended from Mitochondrial Eve and Adam ÒYÓ somewhere in Africa. They
were still communists sustaining themselves through social labor and their
ancestors had been doing so for millions of years.
And, for that matter, even if we believe our species came
about through sheer happenstance, we must still deal with the real conditions
of our existence, with our relations with our kind and the rest of our evolving
world, just as the Manifesto says.
As to where our hobbit friend fits it, it is simply too
soon to tell. Various interpretations have been offered, as York notes, but
there is no easy explanation.[20]
Marxists always need to be open and self critical, but so far, there is nothing
that necessitates a rejection of the basic tenets of historical materialism.
[1] Both are reprinted in Frederick Engels, The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State (New York: International Publishers, 1972). with an Introduction by anthropologist Eleanor Leacock. They are also available in the Marx & Engels Internet Archive (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/).
[2] I have discussed this elsewhere, see
Eugene E. Ruyle, "Rethinking Marxist Anthropology," in Perspectives
in U.S. Marxist Anthropology, edited by D.
Hakken and H. Lessinger, (Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1988), pp. 24-56, and
"Anthropology for Marxists: Prehistoric Revolutions." Nature,
Society, and Thought: A Journal of Dialectical and Historical Materialism 1 (1988): 469-499.
[3] Engels, ÒThe Part Played by Labor,Ó pp.
258-259.
[4] Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, The German Ideology (New York: International Publishers, 1939, original edition 1876), p. 7.
[5] Engels, ÒThe Part Played by Labor,Ó p. 255.
[6] Marvin Harris, Our Kind: Who We Are, Where We Came From, Where We Are Going. (New York: Harper & Row, 1989), p. 33.
[7] Engels, ÒThe Part Played by Labor,Ó p. 253-254
[8] Richard B. Lee, ÒReflections on primitive communism,Ó in Hunters and Gatherers. Volume 1: History, evolution and Social Change, edited by T. Ingold, D. Riches and J. Woodburn (Oxford: Berg, 1991).
[9] Engels, Origin, p. 159.
[10] Engels, Origin, p. 232
[11] Frederick Engels. Dialectics of Nature (New York: International Publishers. 1940, original edition, 1883), p. 17.
[12] George Gaylord Simpson, The Meaning of
Evolution (New Haven: Yale University
Press, 1949), p. 130.
[13] Stephen Jay Gould, An Urchin in the Storm. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 1987), pp. 112, 114.
[14] Charles Darwin, On the Origin of Species (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1964, facsimile of the 1859 First edition, with an introduction by Ernst Mayr), p. 6.
[15] Marvin Harris, Culture, People, Nature: An
Introduction to General Anthropology (New
York: Crowell, 1975, Second Edition), p. 95.
[16] L. Luca Cavalli-Sforza, Paolo Menozzi, and Alberto Piazza, The History and Geography of Human Genes (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1994), p. 65.
[17] Milford H. Wolpoff, Paleoanthropology (Boston: McGraw-Hill, 1999, Second edition).
[18] Stephen Jay Gould, ÒSo Near and Yet So Far,Ó The New York Review of Books (October 20, 1994), 24-28.
[19] Stephen J Gould, ÒIn the Mind of the Beholder,Ó Natural History (February, 1994), 14-23.
[20] Interest in the hobbits has continued. They
were on the cover of Scientific American
in February 2005 with an article by Kate Wong, ÒThe Littlest Human,Ó pp. 56-65.
Also a PBS special, ÒLittle People of Flores,Ó on Nova on April 19, 2005: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/sciencenow/3209/01.html.
For the latest, just google ÒHomo floresensisÓ or see the Wikipedia Enclopedia which is updated every few weeks: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_floresiensis.