I spent part of the weekend refamiliarizing myself with Michael Pollan's "The Omnivore's Dilemma" in preparation for this morning's interview with him (which will be published in an upcoming issue of The American Conservative). Michael seemed amused to learn that he's got a following on the Right -- somebody had sent him Tory Anarchist's post from the other day proposing a Wendell Berry-Michael Pollan conservatism -- but he said that the more deeply he goes into writing about food culture, the more he's discovering things that resonate with traditional conservatism.
Well, when TAC has the whole interview up, I'll post it and quote from it at length -- I think it'll give us all a lot to talk about on this blog. But I will point out something from Omnivore's that occasioned a question, and a thought.
In the book's section on Joel Salatin, the Evangelical Christian organic farming wizard from Virginia, much is made of Salatin's fundamental view that a healthy farm is an organic system, not a machine. A chicken, Salatin believes, has to be free to express its "chicken-ness" -- that is, its inner nature. We can't violate the natural order without suffering consequences. This is a broader theme of Pollan's work on agriculture -- that we have made tremendous errors by assuming that the material world is entirely plastic, and can be manipulated as we like for our own benefit.
If we believe this is true about the world of plants and animals, why is it not true about the world of human beings? Isn't it true that society is an organism, not a machine? And if yes, then doesn't it follow that contrary to the modern belief, there really are ends in nature, and that we humans are part of nature, and have an internal nature that we must work to refine, but not defy?
And if that is so, what does that tell us about sexual autonomism and our culture? What sets human beings apart from the natural world with regard to the way we organize our societies to govern the sexual instinct? Are there things we may not do, because it will destroy the natural order that is best for our ability to live together in community, and thrive? Wendell Berry certainly believes that is so.
We're all part of a whole. You can't separate out any one part from the whole, and hold it exempt, or there will be a price to pay. You watch: just as Pollan and his followers are rediscovering today that there are ends built into nature and natural systems that we ignore at our peril, with regard to agriculture, one of these days we'll discover the same about traditional marriage, and so many of the institutions torn down by modernity (as distinct from refined).
There's a deeper and broader politics in Pollan's work, one that goes beyond the field and the farmer's market. Wendell Berry has been tilling that ground for some time. I too look forward to being part of the Wendell Berry-Michael Pollan Right.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
Mdavid,
I'm discussing in good faith, and have no emotional investment in any of it.
I regret any implication that I thought otherwise of you or your motivations. I could have phrased that part of my post better.
Further, I believe it is more accurate to see my post as over-complicated for the intended point. They don't call me "professor" for being informative (when their not calling me pompous windbag, of course.) ;-)
I submit that it is neither necessary nor constructive to bring outcomes into the discussion at the level at which I was thinking. The general causes and motivations of human reproductive behavior include many things besides sexual intercourse, and pregnancy is not a possible outcome for many of them. Aggressive behavior towards other males, physical showing off when in the sight of females, and direct attention getting behaviors like scatalogical hijinks are examples.
The ultimate goal of instinct is reproduction, no quarrel there. However, species survival is not possible if many variations are not present. The basic function of selection is to find those variants who are already at least partially adapted to whatever factor is changing. One more thing: the ability to carry a fetus to term and birth the baby alive is not the only survival trait around reproduction. There's the instinctive conditioned response that babies can invoke in adults, amongst many other non-sexual behaviors and responses.
Species survival is served if a baby survives to become an adult. Every human is capable of that service. The species does not "care" if the new adult has more than a 500-word vocabulary or can perform brain surgery while singing an aria. We care, you and I. That's the perspective I'm offering here.
Franklin,
I think I see your point, and don't disagree. A few clarifications:
Species survival is served if a baby survives to become an adult.
That adult needs to be a breeding adult as well. It's not enough to just have an adult.
The species does not "care" if the new adult has more than a 500-word vocabulary or can perform brain surgery while singing an aria.
I think it does - the human cranial capacity of man has been going up for millions of years, selecting for brains. More brains, more resources and power at war, more offspring.
Of course, modernity has thrown a wrench in this game; today, it seems that the ability to perform brain surgery ensures lower procreation. So we are certainly in flux here, and and anything might happen.
Mdavid,
And I repeat that your points are well taken. I was hoping we could see a common ground, because you do have important things to say in this issue, and they need to be seen and heard.
Some clarifications of my own:
That adult needs to be a breeding adult as well. It's not enough to just have an adult.
Yes, and yes. However, at the level of the species, it is enough that some of them reproduce.
Cranial capacity is, if you'll forgive me, an inadequate angle to take. The distinction of the human species is abstract thought, the ability to reason and transcend the environment, instincts and the "power" of other species to be competitors with humans. It is our gift, and the biggest danger we carry for our planet.
...the ability to perform brain surgery ensures lower procreation.
I find that to be an excellent summary of the situation. It points to the key, logical paths towards both species survival and its ability to destroy itself. The thing that hasn't been stated yet, at least not in so many words, is that humans are the first and only species capable of negating the process of selection, of promoting the survival of traits that are no longer necessary for survival, and further those traits that are a net danger to species survival. Anti-evolutionists (if there really should be such a term) are missing their opportunity to present a valid critique of evolution by failing to emphasize that ability, and for failing to criticize our best minds for not taking it into account.
It's hard to talk sanely about ecology with somebody who thinks the carrying capacity of the planet is measured by one's ability to find a parking space.
"That adult needs to be a breeding adult as well. It's not enough to just have an adult.
"Yes, and yes. However, at the level of the species, it is enough that some of them reproduce."
Indeed, many species survive only because the proportion of adults who breed is limited in some way. Non-breeding adults are crucial to the survival of some species, in performing functions that breeding adults cannot handle by themselves, or in limiting breeding to the adults with the best survival characteristics.
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.