1. 학술활동 내용
2. 이건근 연구원이 발췌하고 정리한 내용
Though perhaps less famous than its older sibling, , 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 :
Debates still rage over what Darwin actually said, intended, or anticipated in his approach to this question.
Certainly, it was clear even when was first published that the processes of selection explained twelve years before in Origin implied problems for the human species,
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, as Darwin’s own analogy of domestication seemed to suggest?
인간은 진화를 통제할 수 있는가?
Did natural selection somehow authorize ? 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 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 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 with a rather different, and arguably less patient, tone than . In a style much less sympathetic to his readers’ tendency to misread his theories, he clearly presents as more in-depth and more definitive in its treatment of the human question.
다윈의 성급함, 부주의, 확정된 태도
As ends with a nearly apologetic tone for both the inevitability of evolution and the potentially unpleasant philosophical and religious ramifications he anticipates its having, begins rather defensively, the author having been provoked into its publication
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 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, 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, reminds readers that 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,
다른 유기물과 다르지 않다.
As he positions himself against the “older and honoured chiefs in natural science… still opposed to evolution”, he states the case even more plainly, citing
As Darwin himself notes, 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.
이 책은 성선택설에 기여하고 있다.
Many of Darwin’s contemporaries, including , departed from Darwin’s strict scientific view of man as animal,
Wallace, for instance, in his paper (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.
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 – 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 .
동물들이 인간의 것이라고 생각되어진 속성을 가질 수 있다.
Darwin also grants a sort of agency to animals that most scientists had not previously acknowledged:
과거에 인간의 것으로만 생각했던 것(배우자 선택)이 동물에게도 있음을 증명함.
Darwin’s theory of sexual selection, which occupies fully half of 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.
진화= 개인의 번식 능력 = 개인들의 짝짓기 능력에 의존하고 유전형질을 후손에게 전한다.
When – 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.
자연선택설은 동물들의 생존경쟁에 의존한다.
단, 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, 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
. Particularly among the males, Darwin points out, seem to be predictive of mating success.
and it is the male sex then which is more changed over generations than the female.
With examples ranging from racehorses to pigeons to insects, Darwin builds a compelling case for animal behaviors being remarkably similar, regardless of species, and
Darwin on race and social politics.
In the first and more notorious half of the volume, Darwin
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 even ones that politically contradicted one another.
사회과학, 교육학적 이론에 도움
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
, which had been begun by Darwin’s cousin Francis Galton in the gets response in , 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 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; (501).
우생학적 관점, 교육학적 관점, 약자보호
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 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,
One of the most visible and volatile debates about origins, the monogeny/polygeny issue, primarily insofar as both sides were used to support ideological movements of the day.
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:
Ultimately, though the rival theories provided fodder for much speculation then and now,
인종에 대한 다윈의 실제 주장은 이후의 경향에 문제가 되지 않는다. 즉, 애매한 태도 때문에 각자 자신들에 유리한 이론을 펼치기 때문이다.