Darwin’s ideas have been associated with anarchism, Malthusian economics, neo-liberalism, militarism, mechanism, and materialism, among other philosophies, and Darwinism as it is popularly understood is a pastiche of ideas with the historical Darwin largely obscured in the mix. Close examination of these co-options and affinities is necessary for a clear understanding of the impact of Darwinism on Western thought.

One way of organizing the material is to draw a line between associations that are constitutive, or intrinsic to the ideas in questions, and those that are contingent, or dependent upon the context of interpretation. This distinction between constitutive and contingent affiliation is a useful starting point for examining Darwinism and the interaction of scientific and philosophical ideas generally, and may even aid in an understanding of the complex role played by emotionality in the reception of Darwin’s thought in the United States.

A theorist explicitly concerned with analyzing contingency and constitutiveness in Darwinism is George Levine, whose Darwin Loves You: Natural Selection and the Re-enchantment of the World was an attempt to isolate a side of Charles Darwin capable of serving as a model for secular wonder and engagement with the world. This project required the teasing out of Darwin the man from the complex mélange of viewpoints that have borne his name and of a particular side of Darwin, one emotionally invested in nature and with something useful to contribute today, from the whole.

The achievement of these tasks reveals a nuanced approach to contingency and careful engagement with the contexts in which Darwin’s theory arose and has been received. This focus on context is crucial to Levine’s argument, as it is his position that all interpretations of Darwin are necessarily contingent no matter how directly rooted in the original texts they may be, because Darwin’s work is itself contingent upon his own social, cultural, and personal context (Levine, x). Indeed, Levine goes as far as to argue that all knowledge is necessarily contingent, dependent as it is upon the contexts of its source and reception (Levine, xii).

This is an initially frustrating but ultimately fruitful way to structure study of the impact of Darwinism. This step exposes all associations of ideas to more penetrating analysis and makes possible new connections, often across disciplinary lines. However, Levine fails to expand beyond an account of the omnipresence of contingency to the character of contingent associations and of the forces that influence them. For these, we need to enlist the help of William Connolly.

Connolly is the author of a book called Capitalism and Christianity, American Style, which examines the mutually supportive forces of evangelical Christianity and capitalism with the final goal of building an analogous coalition to oppose them. He employs a number of concepts relevant to this discussion, central among which is the assemblage. An assemblage is a “temporal complex in which numerous coexisting elements are simultaneously interinvolved [and] externally related” (Connolly, 12)—it is a body resulting from connections and associations between ideas, institutions, and affects. Darwinism as popularly construed is an assemblage, as is Darwinism as laid down in Darwin’s writings and probably even Darwin himself, though Connolly never says such a thing outright.

Insofar as an assemblage is formed whenever anything is communicated, it may be said that the assemblage is the basic unit of contingency. Next in Connolly’s vocabulary are resonance and dissonance—as applied to constituents of an assemblage they refer to the properties of mutual support and opposition, respectively. The assemblage formed by evangelical Christianity and capitalism is referred to as a ‘resonance machine’ because of the way its parts work together to strengthen each other and the system as an integrated whole.

Connolly describes assemblages and their advocates as bound together by shared dispositions, which he refers to as spiritualities or ethe (Connolly, 9). These dispositions are clearly affective in nature—Connolly is highlighting the role of emotion in the organization of ideas.

The approaches of these two theorists are particularly effective when used in conjunction. Levine’s understanding of contingency provides a flexible and consistent foundation for examination of the relationships between ideas, and Connolly supplies a toolbox with which to advance beyond this theoretical framework and do meaningful work on specific issues. This is not to imply that Levine’s approach lacks a practical dimension or Connolly’s a theoretical basis, but merely that the selected aspects of their thought work especially well together for analysis of the character and causation of assemblages in cultural context.

The contingency of assemblages, as emphasized by Levine, is the starting point in the application of a hybrid method drawing on the thought of these two men. The fact of contingency does not in itself speak to the nature or origin, but does indicate where such an explanation must be found, namely, in the contexts of their emergence and persistence. However, before investigating the contents of context, Connolly’s insights regarding the strength of assemblages, as measured in resonance and spirituality, must be applied to Levine’s scorched earth application of the principle of contingency.

Assemblages are not simply contingent; they are contingently organized and constructed in particular, intelligible patterns. The primary consideration in the construction and characterization of assemblages and the most significant factor to be found in their contexts are the same thing: shared emotion or spirituality. Two examples may clarify and demonstrate this phenomenon.

Ronald Reagan’s farewell address is an excellent example of emotion wielded to create and reinforce assemblages. Reagan’s gift for communication was his ability to link clearly presented ideas with particular affective states through a storytelling idiom. His message was simple, consistent, and suffused with potent emotionality, so much so that even somebody ideologically opposed to Reagan might easily find himself moved by the experience of listening to him speak. The affective context or spirituality of pride, hope and unity into which Reagan delivered his political assemblage bound tightly together the resonating strands of his ideology.

The other half of the secret to Reagan’s success in creating a durable and contagious assemblage was his ability to use emotion to bind together people as well as ideas. He was personally likable and radiated inclusivity (his farewell address describes America as a city “teeming with people of all kinds” with “doors open to anyone with the will and heart to get here”), not least through his idolization of ordinary Americans. His followers were made to feel themselves part of a movement—the Reagan Revolution, Moral Majority, true Americans—held together by shared ideals and affects. Connolly wrote that the strength of associations lies in shared dispositions, or spiritualities, and Reagan’s effectiveness as a politician is a demonstration of that principle in action.

Alex Jones’ interview with Piers Morgan on CNN is a very different example of the role of emotion in structuring knowledge. Jones is an outspoken conservative radio host who petitioned for Morgan’s deportation from the U.S. for his advocacy of tighter gun control. Jones’ appearance was saturated with affect, but of a different variety and organized very differently than was Reagan’s. Jones seemed desperate and out of control, overwhelmed by anger and fear, whereas Reagan smoothly wove ideals and emotions into a coherent and articulate worldview.

The ideological pillars of Reagan’s assemblage remained, but the emotional context was so different as to render it nearly unrecognizable. This new affective quality still has some ability to unite ideas and people, as is demonstrated by Jones’ instinctive xenophobia and paranoid assemblages of the very wealthy, big Pharma, and government, but its influence and breadth of appeal is far narrower. The differences between Reagan’s conservative assemblage and Jones’ is a testament to the importance of context, especially emotional context, in the organization of intellectual life.

The distinction between contingency and constitutiveness is a useful theoretical perspective from which to launch an investigation of the associations between ideas. Thinking in terms of contingency sets the stage for investigation of the organizing power of emotion, which is crucial for effective engagement with the impact of Darwinism in Western thought. The examples, though not directly linked to evolutionary theory, serve to demonstrate the effects of context on the character of assemblages, a principle with great relevance to the study of the impact of Darwinism.

A theoretical perspective in which Connolly’s ideas of resonance and shared spirituality inform a sliding scale of assemblage strength on a background of universal contingency is has potentially great explanatory value. Additional study is necessary to further expand and articulate this approach for application to issues directly related to the reception of Darwinism in the U.S., such as the assemblage of philosophical materialism and evolutionary theory and that of Darwinism and higher criticism.

Images:

http://rebloggy.com/post/cool-horror-interesting-dark-skull-

morbid-strange-surreal-depressing-different-d/38133531454

http://fineartamerica.com/featured/on-the-conquer-for-land

-darwin-leon.html