Reading #5 - Huxley, Tylor, Galton, Darwin

In T.H. Huxley's article, "On the Physical Basis of Life," the science he discusses is quite black and white. He writes that not only have "matter and law ... devoured spirit and spontaneity," but that it is impossible to prove by "human logic" that "any act is really spontaneous" (223). The discussion exposes the science behind materialism, which is an important topic to Victorian writers because the Industrial Revolution pushes Progress and consumerism, something that scientists and literary writers alike loathe and perhaps fear. Huxley seems to lean toward to school of thought that materialism, which is driven by matter, force, and necessity (as far as scientific theory goes), will lead to human destruction (224). In about 140 years it hasn't happened so far, but I think there is some truth to Huxley's theories. For example, he writes that "the order of nature is ascertainable by our faculties to an extent which is practically unlimited," and that "our volition counts for something as a condition of the course of events" (225). Here he is saying that to an extent, we can control nature as long as we assess and properly use our resources, and also that what we want to happen might come true if we manipulate the circumstances of nature properly. In other words, we should utilize the resources we are given, but not to excess.

Edward Tylor's "The Science of Culture" may seem racist to those who are not reading with a critically Victorian mindset. First, Tylor defines cultue as "the complex whole which includes knowledge, belief, art, morals, law, custom, and any other capabilities and habits acquired by man as a member of society" (317). Of course one from the twenty-first century reading this article is going to find Tylor's text racist. Racism as a new concept has not come into the lexicon of the Victorian era, and, particularly when it comes to science, racism is not a mindset in which Victorian writers would indulge. That said, Tylor and his colleagues are not going to write in a politically correct manner; instead Tylor does not consider that "lower races from Kamchatka to Tierra del Fuego, and from Dahome to Hawaii" have their own cultures (319). To white scientific writers, "white" is the only culture.

To be honest, neither Spencer nor Darwin interested me very much. Both scientific writers focus more on the qualifications of humans, Spencer on those men considered to be primitive (i.e., shorter with larger craniums) and Darwin on men who should survive and those who should not. I would much rather read about how the man who is primitive or weak interacts with his surroundings than read a theoretical report on why the primitive or weak man should not exist.

One of my favorite quotes from Galton comes from the article we read for last week's class: "The goodness or badness of character is not absolute, but relative to the current form of civilisation" (329). It reminds me of Harry Potter (because I'm a nerd and know the books and movies by heart); in the movie version of Order of the Phoenix, Sirius Black, Harry Potter's godfather, tells him, "The world isn't split into good people and Death Eaters [the most evil wizards]." But Galton does not discuss the character of people for the majority of his article. Instead he expounds the benefits of eugenics: "The race as a whole would be less foolish, less frivolous, less excitable and politically more provident than now" (330). I don't know if he was right in thinking so, but I do believe that there are some benefits to weeding out weaker, less intelligent people (not, as I said last week to avoid a fight in class, whole races of people).