The Selfish Gene was supposed to be one of those expulsions.
It did not succeed.
0. What Dawkins Actually Did
The provocation of Richard Dawkins was not that genes are selfish.
That was the bait.
The move—the real move—was far more surgical:
Remove the organism as the primary unit of explanation.
Replace it with:
differential persistence of replicators.
“Selfishness” here names nothing psychological, nothing intentional, nothing strategic.
It names only this:
some configurations persist more than others.
That’s it.
Just bias in what continues to exist.
1. The Illicit Return of Agency
And yet, almost immediately, the language begins to slide.
Genes become:
- “rogue”
- “cheaters”
- “in conflict”
Organisms become:
- “regulators”
- “coordinators”
- “systems that keep selfish elements in check”
We are back—almost effortlessly—in a familiar narrative structure:
Parts with interests.Wholes that manage them.
This is not a biological discovery.
It is a semiotic reflex.
2. The Organism Strikes Back
Consider the framing that now circulates in contemporary discussions:
the organism maintains integrity by suppressing selfish genetic elements.
At first glance, this seems empirically grounded:
- cancer
- meiotic drive
- transposable elements
All real. All observable.
But notice what has happened conceptually.
The organism has been reinstated as:
a locus of control.
A centre.
A manager.
A thing that does something to its parts.
This is precisely the explanatory structure Dawkins destabilised.
And yet here it is again—quietly reassembled.
3. The Inversion No One Notices
Dawkins’ actual claim was deeply counterintuitive:
cooperation does not oppose selfishnessit emerges from it
Stable organisms are not:
systems that suppress selfishness
They are:
outcomes of configurations in which non-cooperative variants failed to persist
In other words:
- no one is enforcing coherence
- coherence is what remains when incoherence disappears
But this is almost impossible to think without slipping.
So we reverse it.
We say:
selfishness is the problemthe organism is the solution
Which is exactly backwards.
4. The Narrative Compulsion
Why does this reversal happen so reliably?
Because “differential persistence” is not a satisfying story.
It offers:
- no agents
- no intentions
- no moral drama
So it gets reconstrued as:
- struggle
- strategy
- control
That is:
a value-infused narrative is imposed on a non-valuational process
And here we have to be precise.
This is not “meaning” in the semiotic sense.
This is value structuring masquerading as explanation.
A reintroduction of:
- good (cooperation)
- bad (selfishness)
- order (organism)
- threat (rogue genes)
All smuggled back into what was supposed to be a non-teleological account.
5. What the “Selfish Gene” Actually Undermines
If taken seriously, the selfish gene does not anthropomorphise biology.
It does the opposite.
It removes:
- the organism as privileged centre
- the illusion of coordinated intent
- the idea that systems exist for anything
What remains is far more austere:
patterns that continue, and patterns that don’t
That’s all.
Everything else—agency, conflict, regulation—is a reconstruction layered on top.
6. And Yet, It Returns
So when contemporary accounts describe:
- genes “acting against” the organism
- organisms “keeping genes in check”
we are not witnessing a refinement of Dawkins.
We are witnessing a reversal.
Not because the biology is wrong, but because:
the explanatory frame has quietly shifted back to one that requires agents
The organism reappears.
The gene becomes a character.
The story resumes.
7. The Real Provocation (Still Unanswered)
The unresolved challenge of The Selfish Gene is not biological.
It is conceptual.
It asks:
Can we describe persistence without smuggling in purpose?
So far, the answer appears to be:
not for long.
No comments:
Post a Comment