Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

On the Significance of William James to a Contemporary Doctrine of Evolutionary Psychology

  • Research Paper
  • Published:
Human Studies Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Academic popularizers of the new field of evolutionary psychology make notable appeals to William James to bolster their doctrine. In particular, they cite James’ remark that humans have all the “impulses” animals do and many more besides to shore up their claim that people’s “instincts” account for their flexibility. This essay argues that these scholars misinterpret James on the instincts. Consciousness (which they find inscrutable) explains cognitive flexibility for James. The evolutionary psychologists’ appeal to James is, therefore, unwarranted and, given the conditions relevant to the public and professional audiences they address, also ineffective as a rhetorical tool for enlisting new recruits.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. This group of researchers is associated with the Center for Evolutionary Psychology at the University of California at Santa Barbara. Their fundamental tenets are that the mind is (1) massively modular (2) shaped by the processes of natural selection over evolutionary time and (3) adapted to the Pleistocene conditions of our past.

  2. Linnda R. Caporael and Marilynn B. Brewer make a similar point while taking issue with evolutionary psychology’s reliance on inclusive fitness theory. Caporael and Brewer state that “the transition from evolutionary theory to evolutionary psychology is not a simple derivative process” because evolutionary theory cannot be equated with inclusive fitness theory (1995, p. 33; 2000, p. 26).

  3. The reason is that developmental systems thinkers have been able to establish that non-obvious prenatal experiences canalize species-typical behaviors and that gene expression can be stimulated (Gottlieb 1997, p. 144).

  4. Indeed, Richards urges that it also saved the man James himself whose plummet into suicidal despair was due in part to ruminating over the problem of free will eclipsed by Lamarck’s thinking (1987, pp. 414–422).

  5. For the evolutionary psychologists, other modules cannot derail a module’s internal deliberations. However, conflict among their various outputs can and, as a normal matter of course, does occur (Pinker 1997, p. 42). This means that more than one module frequently is triggered in response to environmental inputs. Nevertheless, unless the upshot of the modularized mind, as conceived by the evolutionary psychologists, solves the problem of combinatorial explosion (and does not merely relocate the problem from the inputs to the outputs of modules) their essential role in facilitating decision-making holds.

  6. This interview with Steven Pinker conducted by staff of the evolutionist can be retrieved at http://www.lse.ac.uk/collections/darwin/evolutionist/pinker.htm. It is listed in the Reference Section under “Pinker.”

  7. Darwin supposed that language is ``certainly not a true instinct, for every language has to be learnt.” He also stated that it differed from the arts because “man has an instinctive tendency to speak, as we see in the babble of our young children; whilest no child has an instinctive tendency to brew, bake, or write” (Darwin, 1871/1952, p. 298).

  8. Available from http://www.human-nature.com/whatsnew.htm

  9. See Ceccarelli (2001) for an excellent discussion of how scientists motivate other scientists to embark on research beyond their home fields.

References

  • Anastasi, A. (1992). Are there unifying trends in the psychologies in the 1990s? In M. E. Donnelly (Ed.), Reinterpreting the legacy of William James (pp. 29–48). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buss, D. M. (1995). Evolutionary psychology: A new paradigm for psychological science. Psychological Inquiry, 6(1), 1–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Buss, D. M. (1999). Evolutionary psychology: The new science of the mind. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Caporael, L. R., & Brewer, M. (1995). Hierarchical evolutionary theory: There is an alternative, and it’s not creationism. Psychological Inquiry, 6, 31–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Caporael, L. R., & Brewer, M. (2000). Metatheories, evolution, and psychology: Once more with feeling. Psychological Inquiry, 11, 23–26.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ceccarelli, L. (2001). Shaping science with rhetoric: The cases of Dobzhansky, Schrodinger and Wilson. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chomsky, N. (1975). Reflections on language. New York: Random House.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chomsky, N. (1978). The ideas of Chomsky: Dialogue with Chomsky. In B. Magee (Ed.), Talking philosophy (pp. 173–193). Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cody, A. B. (1998). How the mind works. Commentary, 105, 69(5), Retrieved November 1, 2001 from InfoTrac OneFile database.

  • Cornwell, R. E., Palmer, C., Guinther, P. M., & Davis, H. P. (2005). Introductory psychology texts as a view of sociobiology/evolutionary psychology’s role in psychology. Human Nature Review, 3(2005), 355–374.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cosmides, L. (2001). Interview with Leda Cosmides, by Alvara Fischer and Roberto Araya for the Chiliean newspaper El Mercurio, portions were published October 28, 2001, Retrieved September 24, 2003 from http://www.psych.ucsb.edu/research/cep/ledainterview.htm

  • Cosmides, L., & Tooby, J. (1994). Beyond intuition and instinct blindness: Toward an evolutionarily rigorous cognitive science. Cognition, 50, 41–77.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cosmides, L. & Tooby, J. (1999). What is the center for evolutionary psychology? Retrieved April 16, 2005 from the University Of California, Santa Barbara, Center for Evolutionary Psychology Website http://www.psych.ucsb.edu/research/cep/cep.html

  • Cosmides, L., Tooby, J., & Barkow, J. (1992). Introduction: Evolutionary psychology and conceptual integration. In J. H. Barkow, L. Cosmides, & J. Tooby (Eds.), The adapted mind (pp. 3–15). New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Darwin, C. (1952/1871). The descent of man and selection in relation to sex. Chicago: University of Chicago.

  • Dewsbury, D. A. (1992). William James and instinct theory revisited. In M. E. Donnelly (Ed.), Reinterpeting the legacy of William James (pp. 263–292). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Elman, J., Bates, E., Turner, M., Karmiloff-Smith, A., Parisi, D., & Plunkett, K. (1996). Rethinking innateness. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gilbert, G. N. (1977). Referencing as persuasion. Social Studies of Science, 7, 113–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gottlieb, G. (1997). Synthesizing nature-nurture. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaun Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gottlieb, G. (2000). Environmental and behavioral influence on gene activity. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 9(3), 93–97.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gould, S. J., & Lewontin, R. (1979). The spandrels of San Marco and the Panglossian paradigm: A critique of the adaptationist programme. Proceedings of the Royal Society, 205(1161), 581–598.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hardcastle, V., & Buller, D. (2000). Evolutionary psychology, meet developmental neurobiology: Against promiscuous modularity. Brain and Mind, 1, 307–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heyes, C. (2000). Evolutionary psychology in the round. In C. Heyes, & L. Huber (Eds.), The evolution of cognition (pp. 3–22). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Horgan, J. (1995). The new social Darwinists. Scientific American, 273, 150–157.

    Google Scholar 

  • James, W. (1890/1952). The principles of psychology. In R. M. Hutchins (Ed.), Chicago: Encyclopedia Britannica.

  • James, W. (1899/1905). Talks to teachers on psychology: And to students on some of life’s ideals. New York: Henry Holt and Company.

  • James, W. (1912/1967). Does consciousness exist? In P. Smith (Ed.), Essays in radical empiricism and a pluralistic universe (pp. 3–38). Gloucester, MA: David McKay Company, Inc.

  • Karmiloff-Smith, A. (1992). Beyond modularity: A developmental perspective on cognitive science. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kennair, L. E. O. (2003). Essay review: An alternative paradigm after all? The Human Nature Review, 3, 24–35.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ketelaar, T., & Ellis, B. J. (2000). Are evolutionary explanations unfalsifiable? Evolutionary psychology and the Lakatosian philosophy of science. Psychological Inquiry, 11(1), 1–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn, T. S. (1962/1968). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

  • Latour, B. (1987). Science in action: How to follow scientists and engineers through society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lewontin, R., Rose, S., & Kamin, L. (1984). Not in our genes: Biology, ideology and human behavior. New York: Pantheon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lickliter, R., & Honeycutt, H. (2003). Developmental dynamics: Toward a biologically plausible evolutionary psychology. Psychological Bulletin, 129(6), 819–835.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McDougall, W. (1908/1917). Introduction to social psychology. Boston: John W. Luce.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mithen, S. (1996). The prehistory of the mind. New York: Thames & Hudson.

    Google Scholar 

  • Myers, G. E. (1992). William James and contemporary psychology. In M. E. Donnelly (Ed.), Reinterpreting the legacy of William James (pp. 49–64). Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pinker, S. (1994). The language instinct. New York: W. Morris and Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pinker, S. (1997). How the mind works. New York: W.W. Norton & Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pinker, S. (1998). In conversation with Steven Pinker. The evolutionist, Retrieved August 27, 2007 from http://www.lse.ac.uk/collections/darwin/evolutionist/pinker.htm.

  • Pinker, S. (1999). The mind reader. Retrieved August 27, 2007, from http://education.guardian.co.uk/scienceweek/story/0,,451824,00.html.

  • Pinker, S. (2000a). Mind, morality, and evolution: An interview with Steven Pinker. Free Inquiry, 20(2), 55.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pinker, S. (2000b). Life in the fourth millennium. Technology Review (May/June 2000). Retrieved March 15, 2007 from http://pinker.wjh.harvard.edu/articles/media/2000_05_technologyreview.html.

  • Pinker, S. (2002). The blank slate: The modern denial of human nature. New York: Viking Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Plotkin, H. (1998). Evolution in mind. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Popper, K. (1963). Conjectures and refutations. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Richards, R. J. (1987). Darwin and the emergence of evolutionary theories of mind and behavior. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Robinson, D. (1995). An intellectual history of psychology. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rose S., & Rose, H. (Eds.). (2000). Alas, poor Darwin. New York: Harmony Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Samuels, R. (1998). Evolutionary psychology and the massive modularity hypothesis. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 49(4), 575–602.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Segerstråle, U. (2000). Defenders of the truth: The sociobiology debate. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Staats, A. W. (1975). Social behaviorism. Homewood, IL: The Dorsey Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Staats, A. W. (1983). Psychology’s crisis of disunity: Philosophy and method for a unified science. New York: Praeger Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Staats, A. W. (1987). Unified positivism: Philosophy for the revolution to unity. Annals of Theoretical Psychology, 5, 11–54.

    Google Scholar 

  • Symons, D. (1995). Beauty is in the adaptations of the beholder: The evolutionary psychology of human female sexual attractiveness. In P. Abramson & S. Pinkerton (Eds.), Sexual nature/sexual culture (pp. 80–118). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, E. (1992). The case for a uniquely American Jamesian tradition in psychology. In M. E. Donnelly (Ed.), Reinterpreting the legacy of William James (pp. 3–28). Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thayer, V. T. (1965). Formative ideas in American education. New York: Dodd, Mead & Company, Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tooby, J., & Cosmides, L. (1992). The psychological foundations of culture. In J. H. Barkow, L. Cosmides, & J. Tooby (Eds.), The adapted mind: Evolutionary psychology and the generation of culture (pp. 19–136). New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tooby, J., & Cosmides, L. (1995). Foreword. In S. Baron-Cohen (Ed.), Mindblindness: An essay on autism and theory of mind (pp. xi–xviii). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Whitley, R. (1985). Knowledge producers and knowledge acquirers: Popularisation as a relation between scientific fields and their publics. In T. Shinn, & R. Whitley (Eds.), Expository science: Forms and functions of popularisation (pp. 3–30). Boston, MA: D. Reidel Publishing Company.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgement

I wish to thank Laura Perini for reviewing an earlier draft of this paper.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 6260 William Edgar Drive, Alexandria, VA, 22310, USA

    Jean Suplizio

Authors
  1. Jean Suplizio
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jean Suplizio.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Suplizio, J. On the Significance of William James to a Contemporary Doctrine of Evolutionary Psychology. Hum Stud 30, 357–375 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10746-007-9063-8

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10746-007-9063-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation