What would a "Darwinian Left" look like?

A "Darwinian Left" would integrate evolutionary science, particularly evolutionary psychology, into leftist ideology to create a framework that acknowledges human nature's biological roots while pursuing progressive goals of social justice and cooperation.

Concept and Core Ideas

The notion of a "Darwinian Left" primarily stems from philosopher Peter Singer's 1999 book, "A Darwinian Left: Politics, Evolution, and Cooperation," where he argues that the political left should embrace insights from evolutionary science to better achieve its aims. Singer posits that traditional leftist views, often rooted in the belief that human nature is highly malleable (as seen in Marxist thought or the standard social science model), are misguided. Instead, he suggests that evolutionary psychology reveals humans as naturally self-interested, a trait shaped by biological evolution. However, he emphasizes that recognizing these selfish tendencies does not mean endorsing them as morally right. Singer highlights that humans also possess a capacity for cooperation, which has been evolutionarily advantageous, and argues that society can be structured to encourage altruistic behavior through mechanisms like game theory and psychological incentives[1].

Expanding on this, other thinkers and writers have explored how a Darwinian perspective could reshape leftist thought. Benjamin Lindt, in his work published by Ockham Publishing, challenges the left's historical suspicion or hostility toward Darwinian theory, often dismissed as a tool of right-wing ideologies like racism or sexism. Lindt asserts that ignoring evolutionary realities is a self-defeating stance for the left, preventing a deeper understanding of human behavior and obstructing the path to a just society. He advocates for open discussions on taboo topics such as inherited intelligence and evolved differences between sexes or races, suggesting that confronting these issues head-on could inform better policy and social structures[2].

Patrick Whittle, writing for Aporia Magazine, further argues that the left's rejection of Darwinism—due to its association with fixed human flaws or past misuses like Social Darwinism and eugenics—hinders a realistic grasp of human nature. Whittle points out that even leftist behaviors, such as tribalism seen in identity politics, may reflect evolved tendencies for in-group and out-group formation. He suggests that acknowledging these biological underpinnings could help address societal issues like nationalism or xenophobia more effectively, rather than attributing them solely to cultural conditioning[3].

Public Discourse and Reception

The idea of a Darwinian Left has sparked varied reactions in public and academic discourse. Singer's work has been both praised for its clarity and criticized for its handling of sociobiology. Philip Kitcher, for instance, appreciates Singer's directness but critiques his reliance on speculative sociobiological claims, while Peter Amato argues that Singer oversimplifies both Darwinism and Marxism, misrepresenting the diversity of leftist thought[1]. This reflects a broader tension in public discourse: while some see value in grounding progressive ideals in empirical science, others fear it risks validating deterministic or hierarchical views of humanity that conflict with egalitarian principles.

Discourse on the left's engagement with human evolution also reveals a divide between ideological camps. Whittle notes the left's discomfort with Darwinian theory often stems from its historical misuse by right-wing ideologies, yet he and others argue that this aversion leaves the left ill-equipped to counter such ideologies effectively[3]. Lindt similarly warns that ceding evolutionary theory to bigots and extremists is a strategic error, isolating the left from modern scientific developments[2]. This debate plays out publicly as a struggle over whether biological explanations diminish personal responsibility or cultural agency, a concern echoed by both left and right, though for different reasons.

In broader political commentary, figures like Eric Kaufmann discuss a shifting cultural landscape where progressive ideologies, including those resistant to evolutionary perspectives, may be losing ground. Kaufmann's concept of a "post-progressive era" suggests that the overreach of cultural left-liberalism, including its dismissal of biological realities, has led to a backlash, evident in public and institutional pushback against certain progressive dogmas. While not directly tied to a Darwinian Left, this context implies a potential opening for alternative frameworks like Singer's, where science and progressivism might converge[5].

Additionally, discussions in Aporia Magazine by Noah Carl highlight skepticism among some intellectuals about whether elite cognitive groups, often aligned with liberal rather than "woke" values, would embrace a Darwinian perspective. Carl argues that while cognitive elites may reject extreme progressive ideologies, their liberal leanings do not necessarily align with hereditarian or evolutionary views, complicating the adoption of a Darwinian Left[4].

Challenges and Implications

A key challenge for a Darwinian Left in public discourse is overcoming the stigma attached to evolutionary theory in social contexts. The historical baggage of Social Darwinism and eugenics remains a significant barrier, as many on the left associate Darwinian ideas with justifications for inequality or oppression. Bridging this gap requires careful communication to distinguish between descriptive accounts of human nature and prescriptive policies, a nuance Singer attempts to address by separating evolved tendencies from moral imperatives[1].

Another implication is the potential for a Darwinian Left to reshape policy debates. By accepting that humans have innate tendencies toward self-interest or tribalism, leftist policies could focus on designing systems—through incentives or social norms—that promote cooperation over competition. This approach could influence areas like education, welfare, or conflict resolution, grounding them in a more realistic view of human behavior rather than idealized assumptions of malleability.

In summary, a Darwinian Left would represent a synthesis of evolutionary science with progressive ideals, advocating for social justice within the constraints and possibilities of human nature as understood through biology. Public discourse around this concept reveals both enthusiasm for its potential to ground leftist goals in empirical reality and resistance due to historical associations and ideological commitments. The ongoing debate underscores a critical juncture for the left: whether to integrate Darwinian insights or risk further alienation from scientific discourse.

Sources

[1] Singer, Peter. "A Darwinian Left: Politics, Evolution and Cooperation." Wikipedia summary of the 1999 book. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Darwinian_Left) - Advocates for integrating evolutionary psychology into leftist ideology, emphasizing human self-interest and capacity for cooperation.
[2] Lindt, Benjamin. "A (R)Evolutionary Left." Ockham Publishing. (https://www.ockham-publishing.com/a-revolutionary-left) - Challenges the left's rejection of Darwinism, pushing for discussion on taboo evolutionary topics to inform a just society.
[3] Whittle, Patrick. "The left must take human evolution seriously." Aporia Magazine. (https://www.aporiamagazine.com/p/the-left-must-take-human-evolution) - Argues the left's dismissal of Darwinism hinders understanding of human nature, using examples like tribalism in politics.
[4] Carl, Noah. "A hereditarian revolution won't solve the right’s 'stupidity problem'." Aporia Magazine. (https://www.aporiamagazine.com/p/a-hereditarian-revolution-wont-solve) - Questions whether cognitive elites would adopt evolutionary views, noting their liberal rather than woke leanings.
[5] Kaufmann, Eric. "Post-Progressivism." Substack. (https://erickaufmann.substack.com/p/post-progressivism) - Discusses a cultural shift away from progressive dominance, potentially creating space for alternative frameworks like a Darwinian Left.

Suggested Sources[edit]

z