Customer Reviews

Man, Beast, and Zombie: What Science Can and Cannot Tell Us about Human Nature

5 star:		(5)
4 star:		(1)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

Is there such a thing? And if so how has this contributed to our confusion in defining ourselves? Pick one: man, beast or Zombie. Notice that I said pick one while Malik's title MAN, BEAST, AND ZOMBIE implies that the choices are not mutually exclusive; choosing all three is a valid selection. I'll defer to Malik and simply say that he's convincing with his arguments in this well written and thoughtful book.

Malik's main purpose with this book is to show that much of our current thinking about human nature is incorrect. The focus is on evolutionary theory, sociobiology, evolutionary psychology, and cognitive science. Malik highlights the areas within each field that are seemingly in agreement on what makes us human, but the real value of this book, and what Malik does exceptionally well, is show how the abiding contradictions are largely steeped in politics and that by understanding this we can emerge with a clear idea of human nature. Far from arguing that science has contributed to a dehumanizing vision of ourselves and that genetic determinism and Darwinism is off, Malik says it's "mostly right" but that "when it comes to the science of Man" things are different. Malik shows how one can support Darwinism but still have a humanistic view of our nature. He's certainly not saying that science is a social construction, but he also does not agree with Daniel Dennett who explains all mental and social aspects of humanity in mechanistic terms as adaptations of evolution. In Malik's capable hands the divide between evolutionary psychology and sociobiology is illuminated and is seen in terms of a philosophical and political argument, but one that is still about the same underlying evolutionary truth. The same can be said for the seeming uncrossable chasm between evolutionary psychology and cognitive ethology. Malik himself takes a position. He sides with Dennett and says that animal behavior tells us nothing about human nature and that studying modern hunter-gatherers can't tell us much about stone-age man. He spends a bit of time refuting Jared Diamond's arguments and pretty much ignores cognitive ethologists. Malik believes that the idea of "self" or consciousness is created by language and thus defines what makes humans unique. Malik's view however is no more than just another position, as is any other, on the same philosophical/political spectrum.

This book is a very useful contribution to the ongoing debate about human nature. It is eloquent in arguing against a deterministic, materialistic, and mechanistic view of humanity. Equally cogently argued is Malik's belief that we should steer clear of an overly humanistic view that borders on mysticism. I'm not disappointed that Malik doesn't (or can't) define an ideal resting point, as it simply proves that reality remains a mix of both the physical and that which is in the consciousness. And where we place reality is still a function of where each of us sits on that all important philosophical/political spectrum.

Ever since Richard Dawkins preached modern 'Neo-Darwinism' in his book, 'The Selfish Gene', a tremendous debate has been raging in academic departments, and amoungst the general public, as to how influential the entities we call 'genes' are in determining human nature. .....

Those who know their history will recall that the current debates about genetics seem disturbingly close sometimes to the ideas about race, genetics and human nature in the early 20th century which ultimately culminated in nightmarish and barbaric events such as the forced sterilisation of 'unfit' people, even in bastions of freedom like America and Europe, and in Nazi Germany, the attempted extermination of an entire people solely on the base of their 'race.' Malik's study attempts to understand the intellectual and historical basis of these ideas, and updates them in light of recent scientific developments in evolutionary biology.

Malik carefully traces the historical outlines of the debate over exactly what role inheritance plays in human nature, drawing on a remarkably broad and eclectic base of history, philosophy, biology, anthropology and psychology. Malik carefully argues a human nature is not entirely determined by ones genes, but is rather something constructed from both one's genetic inheritance and culture.

What makes this book so good is that Malik presents a balanced assessment of this controversial issue-'nature vs nurture'- without descending into the dismissive, arrogant and narrow viewpoint of an idealogue. His wonderful assessment of one area, sociobiology, and the tragic and colourful human figures who invented it, is just one fine example out of many. It makes a refreshing change from Dawkins or Dennett, or their creationist/constructionist enemies, who seem to base their works on dismissive rhetoric rather than the good, solid argument coloured with sound historical understanding and an awareness of the human condition that characterises Malik.

This book is thoroughly enjoyable and highly recommended for insight into the debates about evolutionary psychology around today.

Many people assume that the only ones who flinch from reductionist accounts of human nature are religious believers who 'lust after skyhooks' pace Dennett and are afraid of losing a sense of mystery, or have a godlike view of human nature they are anxious to preserve. Not so. This book, certainly one of the best introductions and critique of Darwinian theories of human nature on the market, shows that you do not have to be religious to feel concerned (and rightly so) about the extravagant claims of some 'Universal Darwinists' when it comes to what makes us human. Kenan Malik takes us on a fascinating journey into history, revealing the roots of the current obsession with dehumanizing views of human nature. Especially after the 2nd World War many people lost all faith in human decency and thus were more disposed to view people as 'zombies' or 'beasts', essentially survival machines with no higher qualities. Also contributing to the dehumanizing was the struggle of evolutionary biologists to defend the legitimacy of evo-bio as a 'real science' against the imperialist reductionism of molecular biology.

Malik makes observations which should not be overlooked or taken for granted by anyone interested in what it means to be human. He rightly observes that at the root of the current confusion over human nature is our lack of a way to conceive of ourselves as both subject and object; as a subject we are (presumably) social, reflexive, rational beings who have real responsibility and agency, but as objects we are obviously biological machines, made of hydrocarbons and molded through natural selection. To study human nature scientifically is to encounter this paradox at its most profound, since in this case we are both the subject performing the inquiry and the object of our investigation. He is surely right that while human beings are immanent in nature, in the sense that we and our minds are products of biological evolution, we are also in some sense transcendent to it, as revealed by our ability to do science. For many modern thinkers the temptation is just too great to deny human transcendence and view human beings solely as objects, even though this view is self-refuting: if we are just biological machines obeying the dictates of genes and culture, how do we know that science isn't just another adaptive fiction? How we make sense of ourselves as rational creatures?

Interestingly, although Malik makes telling, scientifically informed (he is a research psychologist) critiques of current trends in evolutionary psychology and stresses the need to hold a view of human nature adequate to our self-understanding as rational, responsible creatures, he does not go very far in resolving the paradox he reveals. He makes some interesting remarks on the need for a theory of 'social selection', the semiotic capacities of language and the 'extended mind' all of which are probably in the right direction, but his own account of human distinctiveness falls short of his own goal. Clearly we still have a long way to go in our study of human nature.

The one glaring omission in this otherwise magisterial manifesto is attention to religious perspectives on human nature. Beliefs about the soul are mentioned only in passing in his historical analysis, and Malik does not consider the possibility that religious perspectives, such as the Christian theory of human nature, might go a long way towards resolving the paradox of object/subject distinction. Indeed, Malik almost betrays a religious orientation himself, but in the end affirms his belief in the Enlightenment ideal of human goodness, which may be, in the words of Jeffrey Burton Russell, "the most counterfactual idea in human history".

All in all an enormously important, controversial book which has not received its due attention because of the celebrity-mongering of Darwinian superstars like Steven Pinker and Jared Diamond. One can only hope that more people will read this book and start asking questions before the view of man-as-zombie or man-as-beast becomes too firmly entrenched in our cultural understanding, with possibly disastrous consequences. Finally, it has great potential, which is not recognized by its author, to harmonize religious and scientific perspectives on human nature. Our self-understanding as rational, responsible creatures is simply not up for grabs, something that religious voices in the science-religion dialogue have been stressing for decades. Another highly recommended, indispensable read.

First-rate guide to the history and current status of human nature. Overall it's depressing, which I took to be accurate reporting.

The first 100 pages are wonderful. Malik's history of human nature up to the mid-20th century I found brilliant, extremely insightful, the best account of that history I could imagine. Just those 100 pages would make this an extremely useful and valuable book. He does go at a fair clip, though, so it might not mean much to someone altogether new to the material. But it's clearly expressed and it makes a masterful refresher to the resources propping up our current notions of human nature.

Great, I thought. I'm in the hands of the perfect guide--well-informed, intelligent, sensitive--to the next 50 years, to which Malik gives the next 200 pages, bringing the story up-to-date.

Those 200 pages were a slog. They seemed rambling and repetitive. The subject matter seemed trivial compared to what had come before. I wondered why he and I were bothering with it. Where was the meat and potatoes?

And that, I think, is the real story of this book. There is no meat and potatoes any more. The tradition's stopped, and Malik's failure to make the story gripping is a due reflection of that---he's reporting fairly. As he describes it, the main intellectual activity over the past 50 years---at least as far as science is concerned--has been coming up with paradoxes and pitting one paradox against another, like boys playing scissors, paper, stone in the schoolyard. "You attack mine, and I'll attack yours, and we both get to publish," something like that. But who else, Malik seems to feel, needs to care? He does due diligence, but his heart's not in. So he regurgitates one minor variant on determinism after another, ranging from beast to zombie and back again, to each of which he makes not very convincing objections. He does, though, explain several times why this all matters, what's at stake when we shrink human nature down to a one-inch square box.

Most disappointing to me were the final two chapters where he gives his own account of the rudiments of human nature. Clearly he's master of the material, both the history and the current theories. But he's unable to break out of the box limiting the theories he criticizes. He says, on the one hand, that human nature can come only from either genes or culture (including socialization) or a combination of both. But then he says humans can "transcend" those, without explaining where that ability comes from. He seems to assume that this is a universally shared belief. Coming from him, I felt I had to assume it is indeed universally assumed.

So, no magic bullet, no penicillin, but a thorough round-up of where we stand today with respect to human nature. Not a pretty picture.

This topic was of interest to me because my group's finals project involves studying human conflict. This book greatly influenced the sociological theories we decided to research.

Written by a science journalist, the author investigates key new developments in the fields of genetics, neuroscience, ethology and evolutionary biology that have implications for the human condition and in this context asks, what is it to be human? Kenan Malik, in Man, Beast and Zombie, highlights that while the great majority of theorists today accept that combinations of genetic and environmental factors determine what we are, few agree on the level of determination and on what general conclusions can be drawn about ourselves.

Malik explains the histories and underpinning philosophies of disciplines such as evolutionary biology, cognitive psychology and artificial intelligence, and this provides the background for his analysis of modern theories of human nature. Malik also considers Sociobiology, an approach to the study of humanity developed in the 1970s, which attempted to explain modern human behaviour as adaptive.

One main theme, however, is the misuse of science in creating libellous notions of what it is to be human. For this scientists themselves must take some but not all of the blame. Although scientists sometimes contribute to the dehumanised portrait of what it is to be a man, "it is the political retreat from Enlightenment rationalism, from a belief in human agency, from the idea of moral progress, that has opened up the space for a mechanistic view of the world (89)." Much of his book is taken up with this interaction between science, politics and culture. Malik, however, does not fall into the trap of sociologizing all scientific truths

When I first decided to do a book review for my biology class, I went to the library and started pulling out books that were on the suggested reading list. What was a first quite a large pile, it got smaller and smaller by the second. I did not judge the books by there cover, but instead by there title. I finally got my pile narrowed down to three books, eventually deciding on "Man, Beast, and Zombie" by Kenan Malik. What I first thought would be a good science fiction read about zombies and there takeover, actually turned out to be a fascinating book about human nature.
The book starts off giving a history of how we have evolved in the way we think about things. Malik focuses in on religious paintings and how they have changed throughout history. He presents The Entombment as an example demonstrating the first attempt at making the figures in the painting seem human, "Bouts' aim is to arouse in his viewers the same emotions of grief and reverence and wonder that are depicted in the painted figures...it is in this very stillness that we see Bout's struggle to depict both Christ and his mourners as real humans" (2). This idea of making the figures seem human is what is now called `Humanism'. Malik then goes on to talk about the effect humanism has had across time and in various cultures. The over arching theme of humanism is "to place human being at the centre of philosophical debate, to glorify human abilities and to view human reason as a tool through which to understand nature" (2). What Malik believes is not that humans are part of a larger destiny that is intertwined with nature, something that many religious thinkers used to believe, but that we are influenced by the things around us and are always changing.
This book is very interesting to read because it makes the reader think about themselves in a way that maybe they normally wouldn't. It is at times very difficult to read and Malik often references things that I think most college students wouldn't be familiar with. Having your laptop on and opened to google is almost essential to reading this book. I came across many words that i didn't know and many historical names/events I had never heard of, google really helped in understanding the text to its fullest. Malik does a wonderful job of balancing the theories of Darwin (191) and modern takes on human nature (274). I would recommend this book to anyone who has ever had an interest in philosophy or the human mind.