Modern scientific research has
identified the major physiological, neurological, and genetic
differences between humans and our biological ancestors. In particular,
it has been found that the human brain is qualitatively different in
terms of the development of the parts of the brain that control abstract
reasoning, social behaviour, and manual abilities.
Modern scientific research has
identified the major physiological, neurological, and genetic
differences between humans and our biological ancestors. In particular,
it has been found that the human brain is qualitatively different in
terms of the development of the parts of the brain that control abstract
reasoning, social behaviour, and manual abilities. This discovery is
yet more evidence in favour of the explanation that Frederick Engels
gave for the evolution of humans in his essay “The Part Played by Labour
in the Transition from Ape to Man”.
This
latest research, by Dr Svante Paabo of the Max Planck Institute for
Evolutionary Anthropology, was reported in a recent edition of The Economist (4th February 2012), which states that:
“Dr Paabo and his colleagues focused their examination, just published in Genome Research,
on two parts of the brain. One was the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex,
which is the seat of abstract reasoning and social behaviour – things
that humans are particularly good at. The other was the lateral
cerebellar cortex, which is more to do with manual abilities.”
Compare the above to this paragraph from Engels’ work, written in 1876:
“First labour, after it and then with it speech – these were the two
most essential stimuli under the influence of which the brain of the ape
gradually changed into that of man, which for all its similarity is far
larger and more perfect. Hand in hand with the development of the brain
went the development of its most immediate instruments – the senses.”
Unfortunately Engels is very rarely given credit for this analysis, which was incredibly advanced for his time.
The part played by labour
In his essay “The Part Played by Labour in the Transition from Ape to
Man”, Engels explains that the decisive step in the evolution of humans
was the adoption of an upright posture. This move from walking on four
feet to two was the result of changes in the environment, which forced
some primates from the forests to the ground below, where they were
required to travel long distances in the search for scarce food
resources. This transition to a bipedal, upright stance freed up the
hands and allowed them to develop a range of flexible functions.
Through the interaction between these proto-humans and their
surroundings, the hand developed new strength and dexterity. This, in
turn, allowed for these early ancestors of ours to manipulate nature in
increasingly complex ways. For example, the development of opposable
thumbs allowed for hands that could grasp and grip objects, whilst the
development of the muscles and ligaments in the hand allowed for finer,
more intricate and detailed tasks to be carried out. As Engels explains:
“Thus the hand is not only the organ of labour, it is also the
product of labour. Only by labour, by adaptation to ever new operations,
through the inheritance of muscles, ligaments, and, over longer periods
of time, bones that had undergone special development and the
ever-renewed employment of this inherited finesse in new, more and more
complicated operations, have given the human hand the high degree of
perfection required to conjure into being the pictures of a Raphael, the
statues of a Thorwaldsen, the music of a Paganini.”
The development of the hand was a qualitative leap forward in terms
of the ability for these early humans to manipulate their surroundings.
Through the development of the hand, more complex tasks could be
implemented and more advanced tools could be fashioned. Whilst other
animals may “use tools”, it is mostly in a simplistic, accidental, and
unplanned manner. Humans are qualitatively different, however, in that
they actively and consciously make tools in a planned manner in order to
carry out complex operations and alter nature.
As Marx and Engels explained in their various works on historical
materialism, the original contradiction in human society was not between
man-and-man, but between man-and-nature. By studying the development of
humankind and society through the ages, Marx and Engels saw that there
are general laws that can be observed, the clearest of which is the
development of the productive forces over time. In other words, we can
see, over the course of history, an ever increasing ability for
humankind to manipulate nature and to therefore free itself from the
confines of nature.
It is this ability to manipulate nature for our own ends that separates humans from all other species. Engels remarks that:
“In short, the animal merely uses its environment, and brings about changes in it simply by its presence; man by his changes makes it serve his ends, masters
it. This is the final, essential distinction between man and other
animals, and once again it is labour that brings about this
distinction.” (emphasis by FE)
Development of the brain
Engels explained that the development of one part of the body, such
as the hand, would have a dialectical effect on the rest of the body,
including the brain and the senses:
“But the hand did not exist alone; it was only one member of an
integral, highly complex organism. And what benefited the hand benefited
also the whole body it served…“…the body benefited from the law of correlation of growth, as
Darwin called it. This law states that the specialised forms of separate
parts of an organic being are always bound up with certain forms of
other parts that apparently have no connection with them…“Changes in certain forms involve changes in the form of other parts of the body, although we cannot explain the connection.”
Some evolutionary scientists lay emphasis for the development of
humans in the brain, the explanation being that the brain of our early
ancestors gradually increased in size, leading to superior intelligence
and the capacity for language, tool-making, etc., which in turn led to
the dominance of the human species over others.
Engels turned this argument on its head, and explained that it was
not the larger brain size and superior intelligence that led to the
development of tools and language, but vice-versa. Through the
development of the hand, and the increasing complexity of tasks that
this allowed, the brain was stimulated. In addition, the new upright
posture also allowed for a heavier skull and brain to be carried.
The dialectical relationship between the hand and the brain meant
that as the hand developed, the brain developed also, which in turn led
to greater intelligence. This dialectical relationship, however, is not
confined to the hand and the brain, but exists between humans and their
surroundings also. Through the development of the hand and tools, early
humans were able to interact with their surroundings to an ever greater
degree – to manipulate their environment. Through this greater level of
interaction, over time, early humans could begin to examine and
understand the world around them in a more “scientific” manner.
By manipulating nature, we gain an understanding of nature itself.
Like the development of the hand, the development of thought is also the
product of human activity – i.e. labour. Through interacting with and
acting upon their surroundings, early humans could begin to abstract and
generalise their experiences to a higher level. Rather than seeing each
individual action and outcome as an isolated event, general laws and
processes could be understood. Through our repeated actions on our
surroundings, we begin to see cause and effect. Unexplained phenomena
become understood processes; mankind transforms the “thing in itself” to
a “thing for us”.
In turn, the ability to abstract and generalise leads to the ability
to develop even more advanced tools. We gain an understanding of
processes by generalising our experiences of many repeated actions and
outcomes, comparing what makes them similar and what makes them
different. For example, by repeatedly smashing one stone against
another, an early human would gradually come to understand the force and
angle that was needed in order to create a sharp tool for hunting. In
this way, rather than being at the mercy of nature, humankind becomes
master of it, and is able to manipulate it to a greater and greater
degree.
By interacting with our surroundings, we become more aware of them.
We begin to gain a sense of self-awareness and self-consciousness. A
similar process to the early development of humans is seen in the early
development of children, with the progression from the unconscious to
the conscious through their interaction with the environment. We begin
to understand and generalise the experiences of the past and thus we are
able to plan for the future.
However, despite our greater scientific understanding nowadays, the
brain and the mind are still imbued with a mystical quality by some.
Throughout history, the origin of human ideas and thought has always
been the subject of debate. Some people claimed (and still claim) that
we might have “innate” knowledge of some things. But all knowledge is
gained through practice and experience of the material world. Our
thoughts and ideas do not exist in a separate realm, but are an
imperfect reflection of the physical world in which we live.
Mind and matter were said by many philosophers to be separate
entities. But the mind is simply the result of the complex interactions
and processes taking place within the brain. Consciousness is nothing
more than matter that has reached a certain level of organisation and
development – matter that has become aware of itself – as Engels
comments in his essay, “Ludwig Feuerbach and the End of Classical German
Philosophy”:
“Our consciousness and thinking, however supra-sensuous they may
seem, are the product of a material, bodily organ, the brain. Matter is
not a product of mind, but mind itself is merely the highest product of
matter. This is, of course, pure materialism.”
The role of language
Alongside the development of the hand, Engels attributes the growth
of the brain to the role of language and speech, which, like the hand,
were also the product of labour. Engels explains that language is the
result of the development of social production and organisation, which
led to the need for greater levels of communication:
“The development of labour necessarily helped to bring the members of
society closer together by increasing cases of mutual support and joint
activity, and by making clear the advantage of this joint activity to
each individual. In short, men in the making arrived at the point where they had something to say to each other.” (emphasis by FE)
Whilst other animals clearly communicate through noises, it is only
in humans that we see the complexities of language, with clearly defined
words, grammar, and syntax. This is the result of the social mode of
production, which requires a higher level of communication as a result
of the greater level of social interaction between individuals.
Language itself requires a certain level in the development of
abstract reasoning and thought, since words themselves are used to
represent abstractions and generalisations of complex, imperfect objects
and processes in the real world. For example, we come up with the word
“circle” to describe the general idea of a round object, which we have
observed and experienced in a variety of forms in the real word.
Similarly, the word “mammal” is used to represent the abstract category
of species that share certain characteristics.
Whilst language requires the ability to abstract and generalise, the
emergence of language leads, in a dialectical manner, to the further
development of abstract reasoning, by allowing humans to generalise
their experiences. Through the use of internal monologue, more complex
ideas and thoughts can be processed, and humans begin to consciously
plan their actions. In turn, the use of language allows ideas to be
communicated and passed down from generation to generation, creating a
“social memory”, i.e. societal knowledge. As Engels explains:
“The reaction on labour and speech of the development of the brain
and its attendant senses, of the increasing clarity of consciousness,
power of abstraction and of conclusion, gave both labour and speech an
ever-renewed impulse to further development…“…This further development has been strongly urged forward, on the
one hand, and guided along more definite directions, on the other, by a
new element which came into play with the appearance of fully-fledged
man, namely, society.” (emphasis by FE)
Genetic determinism
The great genius of Engels was to give a materialist explanation for
the evolution of humans and their difference from their ancestors. As
explained above, the main thrust of Engels’ explanation lies in
identifying the development of the hand and speech, through labour and
socialised production respectively, as the impetus for the growth and
development of the brain and human intelligence.
The modern research by Dr Paabo mentioned above, whilst seemingly
strengthening Engels’ analysis, is in danger of inverting cause and
effect. As mentioned previously, it is not simply the growth of certain
parts (or the whole of) the brain that leads to the development of
abstract reasoning, social behaviour, and manual abilities, but
vice-versa. The need to survive required greater social intercourse
between individuals, whilst the need to stand upright led to the
development of the hand and increased manual dexterity, which in turn
led to the development of the brain and the increased ability to
abstract and generalise. In other words, the size and structure of the
brain is the product of the interaction between ourselves and our
environment, and also between the brain itself and the other parts of
the body.
The main element in Dr Paabo’s research was in attempting to identify
the specific genes that are uniquely active in human brains but not in
those of other similar species, and thus find the genes responsible for
“making us human”. This is dangerous territory. To think that the
qualities of humans can be reduced to a single set of genes is to reduce
the qualities of all life to a simple, mechanical one-sided genetic and
biological determinism. Humans are not mere mechanical machines and our
genetic code – i.e. DNA – is not completely analogous to the
programming computer code that defines the actions of a robot.
Human DNA is 98% identical to that of chimpanzee DNA, but that 2%
makes a qualitative difference. More importantly, one cannot explain the
qualities of humans – either as individuals or as a species – by simply
comparing their genes against those of our ancestors. We are not simply
the product of our genes, but of the complex, dynamic interaction
between our genes and our environment, including all the various social,
economic, and cultural factors involved.
We are more than the sum of our parts. For example, the human brain
when removed from the body ceases to act as a brain, but merely becomes a
lump of inert matter. Similarly, one cannot ascribe a particular
physical or psychological quality of humans, or of any individual, to a
single gene or even a set of genes. It is the complex interaction
between our entire genetic code and our environment that gives rise to
us as a species with all our qualities.
The mechanical approach of analysing a thing or phenomena in
isolation has nothing in common with the method of dialectical
materialism, which recognises that all things are interconnected, and
that it is these very interconnections that give rise to the qualities
of any one thing. To detach one element of a thing – i.e. one gene in a
human – and analyse it in isolation means losing the connections and
interactions between that element and all the others that give rise to
the various qualities of the thing.
Human nature
The arguments of the biological and genetic determinists stray
perilously close to the ideas of those who talk of an innate “human
nature”, a concept which is used to justify the entire exploitative
nature of capitalism. After all, how can we ever have socialism if we’re
all inherently greedy, selfish individuals?
Dialectical materialism – the philosophical method of Marxism –
recognises that no thing possesses innate properties that are simply
inherent characteristics of the thing itself. All properties are
relations and are relative. For example, a knife does not simply possess
the properties of “sharpness” and “hardness” that allows it to cut. The
properties of sharpness and hardness are relations between the knife
and another object. In relation to butter, a knife is both sharp and
hard; however, in relation to a diamond, a knife is no longer hard and
its sharpness is of no use.
Similarly, Marx explained in Capital that capital itself is not a
thing, but a social relation between things. Money or machinery by
itself is not capital; money or machinery used to exploit labour and
produce a surplus is capital.
Hence there is no such property called “human nature”. All the
qualities of humans are a result, on the one hand, of the interaction
between our genes and our environment, and on the other hand, of our
social relations – i.e. of the relationship between the classes and the
means of production. Greed and selfishness are not inherent qualities of
the human species that arise due to the competition for resources, as
is proclaimed by the Social Darwinists, who seek to indentify these
qualities as an inevitable product of the “survival of the fittest” – a
term that Darwin himself never used. Rather, greed and selfishness are
products of the capitalism system, which thrives on competition between
individuals.
Greed and selfishness are not innate qualities of humans that arise
from a Darwinian struggle for existence, but are qualities that arise
from the struggle between the classes. What’s more, these qualities are
not natural to the working class, who are, in fact, compelled to
cooperate and collectively organise in order to maintain their standard
of living in the face of attacks by the capitalists. Greed is not a
quality of human beings in general, but a reflection of the ideology of
the bourgeoisie, a class whose entire existence is based on greed and
competition.
Unlimited potential
The great leap forward in the evolution of humans was the freeing up
of the hands. With this decisive step, our ancestors freed themselves
from the confines of their genetic code. Early humans were not the
strongest creatures or the fastest hunters, but with the freeing up of
the hands, humankind began to develop tools, thus gaining a great
advantage over all other animals. For the first time in the history of
the earth, a species existed whose evolution was not simply determined
by nature and the given environment. Here was a species that could
change the environment in which it lived.
We have now reached such a point as a species where our understanding
of nature and ability to manipulate it means that we can actually
change the code of life itself through genetic engineering. Meanwhile,
the development of tools has reached such a high level that modern
research is being conducted into mind-controlled machines. The ability
to augment ourselves through genetic design and bio-engineering is now a
real possibility. In this respect, the potential for what we can
achieve as a species goes far beyond what is dictated by our genetic
code.
This unlimited potential, however, cannot be fulfilled under
capitalism. The private ownership of the means of production, with its
constant quest for greater and greater profit, is a great barrier on the
development of the productive forces; of the development of science and
technique. Rather than moving humankind forward, and using the
accumulated knowledge of millennia, capitalism throws millions into
poverty and threatens to reduce us back to a level of barbarism. We will
only be able to use our full potential as a species by democratically
planning our society and using the great productive forces that we have
at our disposal for the good of people, not profit. As a species we have
evolved an immense potential. Our brains are capable of the most
advanced thinking. Capitalism is not the final frontier of human
ability, but a mere stage in a much bigger picture. To move on in a
progressive manner as a species we must first overthrow capitalism and
put an end to the misery that it causes. That means moving forward to
socialism!
