“Elizabeth, Queen of the Jungle: Prehistoric Primate Politics in Renaissance England”
Abstract
February 9, 2016
Academics are keenly aware that at present, the Humanities are being buffeted by hostile external forces. An honest appraisal, though, would reveal that in the contemporary university, the liberal arts suffer from enervating internal maladies as well, an important one being a widespread but unfounded bias against science. My essay will be something of a program statement or manifesto in favour of New Humanism or bioculturalism: an approach to the study and teaching of history and literature that – while taking into account specific local ecological factors – is constructively strengthened and informed by recent discoveries in the life sciences. Fields such as cognitive neuroscience, behavioral genetics, and evolutionary psychology are leading to nothing less than a verifiable understanding of universal human nature, one that is richer and more comprehensive than the constructivist, P.C. theories that currently prevail in teaching and publishing about literature, history, and related subjects. The question, then, of whether or not to incorporate these ongoing discoveries is not wholly insignificant.
The benefits of such a interdisciplinary understanding of the past are illustrated by brief analyses of some key episodes in Tudor dynastic politics as seen from a biological perspective. The specific focus will be on Queen Elizabeth I’s politic management of questions concerning her potential marriage and, eventually, her succession, and the efforts of concerned authors and coalitions to comment on and influence important issues of policy through persuasive fictions. Tudor history offers a fascinating case study in primate politics, showcasing how leaders and factions attempt to acquire and maintain status and mates. Moreover, related topics, such as how individuals balance desires advantageous to their selfish genes against pressures to conform to pro-social norms, how and why humans seek to acquire intangibles such as rank, and how savvy social players employ Theory of Mind and deceptive Machiavellian intelligence to achieve their goals were also distinctly foregrounded in Elizabethan court culture. Our comprehension of and interest in these “kings’ games” (to quote Sir Thomas More) can be significantly increased by viewing them in light of anthropology, primatology, and other areas of “deep history” that have embraced empirical scientific enlightenment.
More broadly, we may well be at a tipping point: will the Humanities survive in any important way as a key element of 21st-century higher education or not? A consilient synthesis of C.P. Snow’s “two cultures” (the arts and the sciences) could revitalize our fields and help fulfill the project of humane letters begun in the Renaissance, whereas continued opposition to applying Darwin’s great idea will likely contribute to the slow-motion train-wreck of our disciplines as they slide towards staleness, triviality, and irrelevance.