글번호
249103
일 자
17.11.02
조회
721
글쓴이
이슬기
제목 : 2017 하반기 제4회 학술세미나 및 강독회 (신데렐라 콤픔렉스 연구)

1. 학술활동 내용

 

1) 신데렐라 콤플렉스와 성선택설의 관계

     2) Charles DarwinThe Descent of Man (1871)에 대한 연구

3) 위 책에 대한 Shannon R. Wooden의 글에 대해서 강독함.

4) 이 글의 장르는 Natural history.

 

 

2. 이건근 연구원이 발췌하고 정리한 내용

 

Though perhaps less famous than its older sibling, The Origin of Species, Charles Darwin’s second major treatise is at least as seminal to the Darwinian revolution from which the world still reels. Books, websites, and blogs even into the twenty-first century reflect our preoccupation with the fundamental question of The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex:

 

What does evolution mean for humans, living as individuals, gathering in societies, divided into so-called “races”, and facing a future apparently determined by struggle and chance? 진화와 인간의 관계, 개인으로서의 삶, 사회에서의 모임, 인류로 분화됨, 투쟁과 기회에 의한 미래를 마주하기

 

Debates still rage over what Darwin actually said, intended, or anticipated in his approach to this question.

 

Certainly, it was clear even in 1871 when Descent was first published that the processes of selection explained twelve years before in Origin implied problems for the human species, ranging from cosmic insignificance and global disempowerment to a perhaps even more terrifying impermanence, the potential extinction of the species. 종의 기원에서 제기되었던 문제들

 

Was man immune from evolution through his development into an elaborately social creature, a “being apart [. . . from] the great laws which irresistibly modify all other organic beings”, as Darwin’s contemporary Alfred Russel Wallace argued (24)?

인간은 생존의 법칙에서 예외적인 존재인가?

 

Better yet, was man in control of evolution, as Darwin’s own analogy of domestication seemed to suggest?

인간은 진화를 통제할 수 있는가?

 

Did natural selection somehow authorize slavery, racial discrimination, and what Kipling would later term the “white man’s burden” of Victorian imperialism? Or were Englishmen, like every other animal species, subject to adaptation in the event of environmental change, perhaps even courting such adaptation by their growing global dominion?

자연선택설이 여타의 지배적 행태를 정당화할 수 있는가?

 

Is homo sapiens on a path toward extinction, whether such extinction eventually happens by our dying out or our evolving into a different species?

멸종된다면 자연소멸인가? 아니면 다른 종으로 진화인가?

 

 

 

The first readers of Descent must have wondered if it would give some support back to man’s notion of his own divinity and dignity, or further erode what little remained?

이 글은 인류의 업적을 부정하고 있는가?

 

Darwin opens Descent with a rather different, and arguably less patient, tone than Origin. In a style much less sympathetic to his readers’ tendency to misread his theories, he clearly presents Descent as more in-depth and more definitive in its treatment of the human question.

다윈의 성급함, 부주의, 확정된 태도

 

As Origin ends with a nearly apologetic tone for both the inevitability of evolution and the potentially unpleasant philosophical and religious ramifications he anticipates its having, Descent begins rather defensively, the author having been provoked into its publication “in consequence of the views now adopted by most naturalists, and which will ultimately, as in every other case, be followed by others who are not scientific” (389).

이 책의 태도는 다소 무례할 정도로 당당함.

 

The Darwin who more than a decade before had seen his work explode into a cultural revolution and be used to support scientifically unsound theories with dramatically different political consequences authors Descent with a clearer and more emphatically scientific voice.

 

Though he was acutely aware of its certain ramifications, he was determined only to be understood. Acknowledging that while his earlier work clearly and thoroughly described the processes of natural selection by which species evolved, it did not explicitly answer the burning questions it raised of man’s place in a mechanistic, random world in which species originated and died out by these processes, Darwin takes a strictly scientific tack to present an argument he seems to have considered obvious. From its early paragraphs, Descent reminds readers that Origin alluded to the idea that man is no different from the other animals it discussed, 인류도 다른 동물과 다르지 않다.

 

and Darwin neither retreats from this conclusion nor postpones its defense: man, he says in the very first paragraph of the introduction, “must be included with other organic beings in any general conclusion respecting his manner of appearance on this earth” (389).

다른 유기물과 다르지 않다.

 

As he positions himself against the “older and honoured chiefs in natural sciencestill opposed to evolution”, he states the case even more plainly, citing nine prominent scientists who have already published works agreeing that humans are “co-descendant[s]” with other animal species (389-90) and claiming that the similarity between man and animal is “notorious” (395), a conclusion to be taken for granted. 인간의 악명 높은 야만성

 

As Darwin himself notes, The Descent of Man was not the first work to consider the relationship of man’s history to the theory of evolutionary development; rather it competed with numerous scientific theories of human development that arose in the wake of the scientific community’s general acceptance of evolutionary theory.

이 책의 발간 당시 진화론은 이미 창궐함.

 

And it is not exclusively his critics to whom Darwin is addressing the volume. Descent’s most important contribution is the theory of sexual selection as a mechanism of evolution.

이 책은 성선택설에 기여하고 있다.

 

Many of Darwin’s contemporaries, including Wallace, departed from Darwin’s strict scientific view of man as animal, maintaining that humans ought not be seen on the same continuum as the other animals beyond basic biological structure.

비판자

 

Wallace, for instance, in his paper “The Origin of Human Races and the Antiquity of Man deduced from the theory of ‘Natural Selection’”(1864), posited that Man continued to evolve past the point at which his physical body stopped, but that his evolution then changed to one of the imagination, as societies, tools, clothing, became what was needed to adapt for the survival of the individual and the species.

인간은 육체적 진화의 수준을 넘어섰다. 정신적이고 문화적인 존재이다.

 

Wallace believed that humans’ apparently greater complexity than animals could not be explained by strictly evolutionary processes.

그래서 인간의 복잡성은 단순한 진화과정을 통해서 설명되어지지 않는다.

 

Darwin, on the other hand, presents an overwhelming volume of evidence to demonstrate how close indeed the mental, emotional, and social faculties of animal species were to man’s in other words, and perhaps surprisingly to some readers, not that man is not too complex for evolutionary theory to apply, but that animals are more complex than other thinkers allow.

다윈은 동물도 인간만큼 복잡하다고 주장한다.

 

Using extensive examples from anatomy, embryology, and behavioral study, Darwin argued not that man was less complex than his peers insisted, but that animals were indeed a great deal more capable of traits thought to be uniquely human, including sympathy and a variety of emotions.

동물들이 인간의 것이라고 생각되어진 속성을 가질 수 있다.

 

 

Sexual Selection

Darwin also grants a sort of agency to animals that most scientists had not previously acknowledged: that of the actively discriminating selection of mates based on preferences not essential to species survival.

과거에 인간의 것으로만 생각했던 것(배우자 선택)이 동물에게도 있음을 증명함.

 

Darwin’s theory of sexual selection, which occupies fully half of Descent, answers those who would argue for man’s uniqueness in the animal kingdom by virtue of his apparently peculiar social and emotional traits.

 

 

이 책에서 고매한 성격을 말함은

Consistent with his championing of animals’ complexity, he demonstrates that sexual selection is an equally significant process in species evolution at all levels, from insects to mammals. As evolution by natural selection hinges on individuals’ surviving to reproduce, sexual selection depends upon individuals’ ability to select mates and thus pass on hereditable traits.

진화= 개인의 번식 능력 = 개인들의 짝짓기 능력에 의존하고 유전형질을 후손에게 전한다.

 

When certain traits seem to provide an individual with an advantage to reproduction but not necessarily to survival for example prehensile limbs that prevent female insects escaping from mating, antlers that fend off other males of the same deer species, birds’ plumage that attracts prospective partners Darwin concludes that those traits evolve through sexual selection. “Just as man can improve [. . .] breeds”, Darwin argues (570), the females of the species aid in the evolutionary survival of particular traits by repeatedly selecting those traits as desirable in a mate and providing offspring that may inherit those traits.

성적 우세함의 형질

 

Darwin anticipates that this animal agency may seem “improbable”, and indeed many of his peers believed so, but true to form, his work is supported with extensive examples and a strictly scientific view of what is indicated by his evidence.

This body of evidence includes also the behaviors and makeup of animal populations. Natural selection depended on the notion of animals’ living in a perpetual struggle for existence, but Darwin acknowledges that population distributions of individual species are often roughly gender-equal.

자연선택설은 동물들의 생존경쟁에 의존한다.

, 다윈은 개별적인 종의 인구분포가 대체적으로 양성평등하다는 점을 인정한다.

 

In these cases, it would seem, sexual selection would be moot, since all individuals would eventually find a mate.

성적 선택은 가능성이 적다, 왜냐하면 거의 모든 종들이 배우자를 찾을 것이기 때문이다.

 

But from roughly equal numbers of males and females, posits Darwin, vitality and vigor are the traits rewarded: in any species, he demonstrares, the stronger males can fend off their peers to win their choice of the stronger and better-nourished females, those more apt to breed early and to successfully raise their offspring. “Such vigorous pairs would surely rear a larger number of offspring than the retarded females, which would be compelled to unite with the conquered and less powerful males”, he claims, “and this is all that is wanted to add, in the course of successive generations, to the size, strength and courage of the males, or to improve their weapons” (572-573).

왕성한 신체적 능력

 

Nor are strength and vigor alone rewarded by sexual selection. Particularly among the males, Darwin points out, plumage, song, “strange antics” and other external idiosynchracies seem to be predictive of mating success.

장기

 

Among most species the males pursue the females, and it is the male sex then which is more changed over generations than the female.

수컷이 암컷에게

 

With examples ranging from racehorses to pigeons to insects, Darwin builds a compelling case for animal behaviors being remarkably similar, regardless of species, and explaining the variation of traits that seem to have no real value in the struggle for survival.

생존경쟁의 가치가 없는 변형 포함

 

Darwin on race and social politics.

In the first and more notorious half of the volume, Darwin expounds upon the racial, sociological, and ontological implications of his theory.

인종적, 사회과학적, 존재론적 의미를 설명함 = 성선택설

 

Much more socially volatile than the theory of sexual selection, which primarily attracted interest and controversy among other scientists, his conclusions were used to support a number of sociological and educational theories, even ones that politically contradicted one another.

사회과학, 교육학적 이론에 도움

 

Laissezfaire public policy became more and more identified with “social Darwinism” and was antagonistic to social programs that might increase the survival of the less fit members of society; similarly, more progressive ideas of “social evolution” were used by educational theorists to justify exercising control over human evolution to solve social and industrial problems.

레제페어 공공 정책 = 사회적 다위니즘

 

The nascent doctrine of “eugenics”, which had been begun by Darwin’s cousin Francis Galton in the 1860s, gets response in Descent, and thinkers still argue about the extent of Darwin’s support for formal and forced eugenic practices. Though most historians agree that Darwin did not support a political agenda of forced selection or the eugenic experiments like those later made infamous by the Nazis,

Darwin’s own language can be confusing if taken out of context. Darwin did believe that an improvement of the human species was possible through selective breeding, just as the domestication of animals improved their desirable characteristics, and he did, famously, say that civilized societies’ protection of their “weak” citizens “must be highly injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man itself, hardly any one is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed” (501).

우생학적 관점, 교육학적 관점, 약자보호

 

But he also called this protective inclination the “noblest part of our nature” and seems thus to have disapproved of the notion of deliberate selection, even as he admitted the evolutionary possibility. “If we were intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless”, he claims, “it could only be for a contingent benefit, with an overwhelming present evil” (502).

인위적 우생학적 차별은 죄악이다.

 

Unsurprisingly, his theories would also be used to support scientific racism, even slavery and imperialism, though Darwin himself believed the biological differences attributable to race as opposed to cultural ones were minor and insignificant.

의도하지 않은 인종차별에 이용됨

 

Consistent with the rest of the volume, in Darwin’s work on race his tack is strictly scientific. Though he recognizes the volatility of the subject, his work is primarily interested in weighing the scientific evidence to test a theory of monogeny, or that the races of man share ancestry, against one of polygeny, or that races of men developed from different origins. In other words, did the races of man come from one source or many, and did they, then, evolve more, less, or differently from one another, or simply from a different parent species? Darwin’s most explicit statement on race, the ambiguous chapter “On the Races of Man”, neither answers this question nor confidently asserts that there are scientifically definable racial categories.

인종의 다양성에 대해 애매한 반응을 가지고 있다.????

 

One of the most visible and volatile debates about origins, the monogeny/polygeny issue, affected Victorian political rhetoric primarily insofar as both sides were used to support ideological movements of the day.

19세기의 화제

 

If the monogenists were right, then all the races came from a single source, a position that could be used to argue for the brotherhood of man. Such a position, however, also suggested that certain races had evolved more (or degraded less) than others and were thus endowed with a natural superiority that either explained such evolution or was explained by it (Gould 71).

인종의 차별성을 Monogeny로 설명할 때,

 

If the polygenists were right, the races of man were essentially separate biological species, in which case, though they could be equally evolved, they would fit unproblematically into hierarchical taxonomies of species.

인종의 차별성을 Pologeny로 설명할 때,

 

The ostensibly competing positions arrived at the same basic conclusion: regardless of whether the races came from one source and differently evolved or came from different and unequal sources, the races were not considered equal.

인종은 다르다.

 

Ultimately, though the rival theories provided fodder for much speculation then and now, Darwin’s actual opinions on the subject of race seem to have mattered little to their various appropriations.

인종에 대한 다윈의 실제 주장은 이후의 경향에 문제가 되지 않는다. , 애매한 태도 때문에 각자 자신들에 유리한 이론을 펼치기 때문이다.

 

 

 

 

 

첨부파일 첨부파일 (파일 명이 길 경우 브라우저 특성상 파일명이 잘릴 수 있습니다.)

2017년 하반기 제4회 학술세미나 및 강독.hwp

목록으로
다음글 2017 하반기 제5회 학술세미나 및 강독회(신데렐라 이펙트 연구)
이전글 2017 하반기 제3회 학술세미나 및 강독회(신데렐라 이펙트 연구)