The original idea behind this programme was for the Department, and more specifically the Language oriented part of it, to mark Darwin’s bicentenary (b.12.02.1809) and the 150th anniversary of the publication of The Origin of Species by an examination of Darwin’s language, its historical context and its effect on us today. By this means we might venture more boldly than we are wont into interdisciplinarity, not only within the capacious discipline of English studies but also further afield. As often happens, original plans evolve, especially in ways which throw doubt on whether there is an intelligent design behind the programme.
‘Some comparative observations on the writing of two great naturalists: Alfred Russell Wallace and Charles Darwin.’
As convenor of this series, I shall spend some time sketching some background scenery, to get us started, before moving to my theme. Browsing for comments on Alfred Russell Wallace’s language, I stumbled upon a claim (whose source I have now mislaid) that Wallace’s language is “far less metaphorical” than Darwin’s. This seemed to be an interesting claim to evaluate but I soon realised that it would be far harder to accomplish that I had supposed. Still, I hope in this talk to comment on some of their similarities and differences, but especially to celebrate two great stylists. As a preliminary exercise, you may wish to ponder how giraffes came by their long necks.
‘Charles Darwin’s centenary and the politics and poetics of parenting: inheritance, variation, and the aesthetic legacy of Samuel Butler.’
‘Darwin and Evolution: the Development of a Dangerous Idea’.
The talk will outline the theory and its developments covering some of the issues that were considered dangerous and evidence for these. I will highlight how some of the misinterpretations and misconceptions are linked to the development of the theory and how they are manifest today as Intelligent Design.
‘Nineteenth century scientific writing.’
‘Darwin’s other legacy?’
Our paper will review the rise of the genomic imagination and popular theories linking biological descent with notions of identity, belonging and authenticity. We will suggest that these are indicative of a renewed effort to naturalise the social, whose success has in significant part resulted from the human sciences’ socialisation of the natural. With reference to the uniquely human phenomena of language and culture, we argue for the distinctiveness of both the natural and the social, avoiding the reduction of either one to the other.
‘Apes, atavism, and anthropomorphism: the language of explorers.’
‘Darwinian Narratology: iteration and variation in narratives.’
What I want to do is to look at the way agency and transitivity are expressed or not expressed when it comes to accounting for evolutionary adaptation, drawing on Darwin himself, and on Jerry Fodor and Steve Fuller in their expression of discontent with Darwinism. Then I'd like to compare this data with the expression of agency and transitivity as we find it in accounts of the financial mess we are in. Is it God or nature or human beings, or is it just a malfunction of an evolutionary process? In conclusion, I'd like to suggest that agency is expressed whenever there is what we regard as a positive development, but malfunction of rule-based mechanisms is invoked when things turn out less desirable.
