Skip to Main Content (access key 1)
Skip to Search (access key 2)
Skip to Search GO (access key 3)
Skip to comments (access key 4)
Skip to navigation (access key 5)
Skip to top of page (access key 6)
Saturday, December 8, 2007 | Science : Commentary | print version Print | Comments

Document Of Dickens and Darwin

by TheScientist.com

Reposted from:
http://www.the-scientist.com/news/display/53975/

Despite appearances, scientists and literary authors have spent centuries mirroring each other, albeit indirectly

It's rare for scientists and literary authors to cross paths. A scientist often works within the hermetic enclaves of a laboratory, and authors -- well, many never set foot in a laboratory their entire lives. As a result, they generally don't talk to each other.

However, I argue that they do talk to each other, albeit indirectly -- scientists are indeed influenced by literary and humanistic discourse, and scientific principles are reflected in literary works.

For example, critic I. A. Richards argued that positivism, a philosophy of science that maintains that knowledge is only arrived at through direct observation, should serve as an example for literary theory. George Eliot, Thomas Hardy and Charles Dickens, authors who wrote during the Victorian era, appropriated many of the scientific arguments of their day into their works. Eliot and Hardy, in fact, showed interest and fascination with accounts of scientific invention and discovery, and their works implicitly comment on science and its effects on society. Dickens appropriated many of the elements of evolutionary theory into his work: The possibility that creation is through natural order, rather than through the unknown, permeates such novels as Bleak House.

In the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, modernism influenced both science and literature. The principles of modernist science -- linearity, reductionism, objectivity -- are reflected in modernist literature, which some argue follows the trend in science toward reductionism, or the analysis of systems in terms of their constituent parts. Modernist literature, too, aspired to reach the rigor of science and to become a serious discipline of study, rather than being merely a leisure activity. Virginia Woolf, for example, was deeply fascinated by astronomy and her pacifist politics and fiction were shaped by advances in astronomy. Marcel Proust's work, because of its deeply psychological facets, has been characterized as presaging evolutionary psychology and modern neo-Darwinism. One aspect of modernist science is the correspondence theory of truth, which states that science has direct access to truth and reality and serves as a mirror to nature. This was also the goal of modernist literature.

That changed when postmodernism appeared, roughly in mid- to late-twentieth century. Postmodern science is a science based on disorder, complexity and indeterminancy, such as chaos theory. It subverts the correspondence theory of truth, and is therefore the antithesis to modernist science.

Here, too, literary authors followed suit and adopted principles of postmodernism. Thomas Pynchon's Gravity's Rainbow exemplifies a non-linear narrative, wherein the author plays insouciantly with the dimension of time. Don DeLillo's White Noise is the quintessential postmodern novel in its illustration of the themes of consumerism, high technology, and fast-paced communication that blur the boundary between representation and reality, hallmark characteristics of postmodernism.

In turn, certain branches of the life sciences seem to have adopted some literary concepts, spawning new dimensions for conceiving of biology. In contrast to modern biology, the foundation of which is the cell doctrine, a postmodern biology emphasizes cellular uncertainty, exhibited by Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle. This new conception states that any attempt to observe a cell, or manipulate it, will, by definition, alter the cell. This to a great degree undermines positivism. If cellular uncertainty holds, it will challenge this long-standing principle.

Scientists and authors absorb the cultural milieu of their time, whether unconsciously or consciously. I believe we are in a new paradigm where the approach to linking science and literature is beyond the term interdisciplinary, and now encompasses a unique, emerging, and multidimensional discipline of its own.

Priya Venkatesan
mail@the-scientist.com

Priya Venkatesan holds a master's degree in genetics from the University of California at Davis and a doctorate in literature from the University of California at San Diego. She is currently a lecturer in the writing program at Dartmouth College.


Comments 1 - 14 of 14 |

Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers

1. Comment #95460 by Zzyx1170 on December 8, 2007 at 11:54 am

My bullshit detector blew a fuse when I read the words "a postmodern biology emphasizes cellular uncertainty, exhibited by Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle."

Other Comments by Zzyx1170

2. Comment #95528 by Annatar on December 8, 2007 at 2:18 pm

The "cell doctrine"? Whaaa...?

Other Comments by Annatar

3. Comment #95531 by Don_Quix on December 8, 2007 at 2:25 pm

 avatarUhhh....what does the uncertainty principle have to do with cells?

I think someone needs to take a basic biology and/or physics course. Or maybe they were just using their literary license ;)

Other Comments by Don_Quix

4. Comment #95579 by stereoroid on December 8, 2007 at 4:06 pm

 avatarI'll stop at "Modern", thanks. Don DeLillo's "Underworld" is the only novel I've ever thrown out a window. I guess I was too old, in my twenties, to give up such concepts as "Coherency" and "Narrative".

Other Comments by stereoroid

5. Comment #95595 by jonjermey on December 8, 2007 at 4:53 pm

The move towards postmodernism is one reason why modern literary novels are going the way of modern poetry -- read solely by ever-decreasing numbers of critics, practitioners and would-be practitioners. Meanwhile the public are reading Dan Brown and JK Rowling -- when they're not watching TV or browsing the Web.

See for instance http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200712/vietnam for an example of how the literary 'elite' have lost all ability to distinguish between rubbish and quality writing.

Postmodernism would be simply laughable if it wasn't for its Dark Side -- cultural relativism, which argues in effect that anyone should be allowed to do anything provided it's 'right' for them. I think we all know how that works out...

Other Comments by jonjermey

6. Comment #95633 by mmurray on December 8, 2007 at 9:16 pm

 avatar

My bullshit detector blew a fuse when I read the words "a postmodern biology emphasizes cellular uncertainty, exhibited by Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle."


Well said. Mine started to twitch at

Postmodern science is a science based on disorder, complexity and indeterminancy, such as chaos theory.


What is postmodern science? I am surprised not to see a mention of `catastrophe theory' that other favourite with people who like to use big words without knowing what they mean.
Seems to have missed synergy and holistic as well. Tut tut.

Michael

PS: You can comment on the original site.

Other Comments by mmurray

7. Comment #95637 by JanChan on December 8, 2007 at 9:39 pm

That's the first time I heard of postmodern Science. Since when do quantum physicists say "the probability graph I get in my experiments are only relative to my culture, there is no absolute truth, if you're in some other cultures, the probability would change too" ?

Other Comments by JanChan

8. Comment #95638 by mrmatt on December 8, 2007 at 9:45 pm

 avatarI don't know how many times I have to point this out: postmodernism has had its day, it is old hat, not many people in literary studies think much of it anymore.

And as to the "science" in postmodernism; it is not science and nor is it trying to be. It is merely an analogy or a paradigm used to describe something. It does not claim it is science at all. For instance, when Deleuze speaks of rhizomes, he isn't talking about plants, he is talking about a philosophical concept similar to how the biological rhizome works. I don't see what the problem is with doing this.

Disclaimer: As a literary academic, I am not fond of postmodernism myself, but I know generally what I am talking about when I talk about it. I also know that it is nowhere near as prevalent in academia (at least in my area) as a lot of articles around here make it out to be. It is sooooo passe these days. ;)

Other Comments by mrmatt

9. Comment #95777 by 42nd on December 9, 2007 at 7:33 am

 avatar"I also know that it is nowhere near as prevalent in academia (at least in my area) as a lot of articles around here make it out to be."

I hope you are right. I really do.

Other Comments by 42nd

10. Comment #96150 by irate_atheist on December 10, 2007 at 4:21 am

 avatarWhat a crock of shit.

Other Comments by irate_atheist

11. Comment #96156 by Ian on December 10, 2007 at 4:50 am

And there was I thinking it was going to be about Darwin and Dickens - they joined the Athenium club on the same day, you know.

I've often wondered what the two men would have said to each other if they'd met. Now, there's an interesting topic for an article. This one is just dull.

Other Comments by Ian

12. Comment #96162 by Verylee on December 10, 2007 at 5:11 am

 avatarPseudointellectuals...She's taking the piss, or deluded....I hope it's the former.

Other Comments by Verylee

13. Comment #96446 by jimbob on December 10, 2007 at 2:48 pm

In a didactic caucaupheny, interdicted by hermeneutic spiraling sympathetic manifestations, there will be the epistomological seminalistic gestations of the new cosmic altering paradigm.

Yeah, well I don't know what it means either, but I'll fight anybody who says it makes less sense than "postmodern science!"

Other Comments by jimbob

14. Comment #96613 by sachatur on December 10, 2007 at 6:51 pm

This is BS.
Was this produced by a
dada engine?

Other Comments by sachatur
Reload Comments | Back to Top

Comment Entry: Please Login

Register a new account

Username:

Password: