Origins as a Paradigm In the Sciences and In the Humanities

Paola Spinozzi / Alessandro Zironi Introduction The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the source of all true art and science. Albert Einstein, The World as I See It, 1940 I. The Intuition and the Pursuit The raison d’Þtre of this volume can be enlightened by focusing on the intuition that the multi-layered-ness and ductility which characterises the concept of origins appeals both to scientists and humanities scholars. From an etymological point of view the noun ‘origin’ relates to ‘1. The act or fact of arising, springing, from something […]; 2. That from which anything arises, springs or is derived’. 1 The adjective ‘original’ means ‘pertaining to the origin, beginning, or earliest stage of something’ 2 and bears connotations such as pristine, primeval, primary. Clearly enough, the indication that there is a source, a commencement, and the condition of being primitive, authentic, archetypal, archaic, essential, pure, allow for remarkable semantic mobility. The wide range of significations renders the concept of origins perfectly suited to host interdisciplinary dialogue. The assumption that origins can be defined as a hermeneutic paradigm in the humanities and in the sciences is explored in relation to specific theoretical frameworks and research methodologies. By investigating how origins have been conceptualised in different domains of knowledge – biology, primatology, psychology, linguistics, history of science, critical theory, classical studies, philology, literary criticism, strategy and accounting – a double movement has been generated: towards the very core of each discipline and beyond disciplinary boundaries. ‘Which are the most productive theories and methods each discipline has elaborated for investigating origins?’ ‘Can they become transdisciplinary?’ ‘Which synergic enquiries can be devised in order to expand and share knowledge?’: such questions have been addressed in order to verify if origins function as a powerful connector between scientific and humanistic 1 Oxford Dictionary, 2nd edn, 1989, vol. X, p. 933. 2 Ibid., ivi. 12 Paola Spinozzi / Alessandro Zironi territories. The prospect of envisaging a context in which a geneticist and a classicist discuss the origins of humankind may well sound provocative. Indeed, one of the major aims pursued in studying origins has been the constitution of an heterogeneous research environment suited to foster discussion about the theoretical orientations and methodological tools which various domains of knowledge have regarded as distinctive and pre-eminent. According to the different lines along which the research has been conducted, it could be said that there are scientific disciplines such as biology, primatology and psychology which share a predisposition to study origins adopting an evolutionistic framework; there are humanistic disciplines such as classical studies and history of religions which discuss the speculative attitudes underlying representations of origins and seem to be only marginally affected by scientific issues; there are disciplines such as linguistics, anthropology, sociology and astrophysics which had to face constraints and even censorship when approaching the topic of origins. In spite of the numerous attempts to involve scholars from these disciplines, only linguistics is represented here. While regretting the absence of the other ones, one may argue that, owing to specific historical controversies, origins are still regarded as a heated area of research which requires further internal discussion and clarification, before transdisciplinary dialogue becomes a fundamental objective. However, because origins involve a quest, which is central in every scientific field, the quest for origins cannot be ignored. It can be excluded, for reasons inherent in the discipline, but not ignored. Thus, explaining why and how various disciplines have responded to the topic of origins involves delving into their histories and cultural ideologies. Insight into the motivations which led certain disciplines to endorse or reject research on origins can be gained by reading the series of lectures kept at Darwin College, Cambridge, in 1986. 3 Origins of the universe are explored by Martin J. Rees, of the solar system by David H. Hughes, of complexity by Ilya Prigogine, of humans by David Pilbeam, of social behaviour by John Maynard Smith, of society by Ernest Gellner, and of language by John Lyons. It is easy to notice that the sciences are represented by outstanding authors, but the humanities occupy a marginal place. The present volume intends to balance the presence of scientists by including contributions from scholars of ancient, early, modern and contemporary literatures. 3 See A. C. Fabian, ed., Origins: The Darwin College Lectures (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988). Introduction II. 13 The Incubation Our questions about origins germinated in Iceland, 4 whose geology has been studied as a model for the natural sciences and whose history and literature have been identified as the core of Northern European cultural identity. Scientists have studied the peculiar genetic heritage of the Icelanders and analysed the earth, fauna, and flora, while novelists, historians and sociologists have praised Old Norse mythology, poetry and sagas, regarded as the substrate that has nurtured the sense of a shared Teutonic cultural heritage. However, in our working hypothesis beginnings are not deemed more important than developments. Indeed, when origins are found, mutations are also found. In Iceland the unceasing outburst of primary elements, far from preserving the original geological features, has left deep marks and produced radical changes. Furthermore, the belief that Iceland guards a pure, unspoiled, untainted, and thus unquestionable Germanic past discloses in fact the germs for incessant re-enactings of memory and history through evolving ideologies. Iceland exemplifies how a model of origins necessarily raises issues about its evolution. Journeys into origins, intended in the widest sense and thus encompassing not only enquiries into the genesis of the universe, the earth, humans, but also quests for the sources of culture, are motivated by a reappraisal of acknowledged values, norms and conventions, and by the necessity to speculate on alternative social and cultural models. While evoking very remote or bygone epochs, origins mark a beginning. They presuppose a ‘before’ that, compared with ‘afterwards’, could be exalted to an ideal excellence, but could also be criticised as less developed and imperfect. Thinking about origins engenders a wavering between backwards and forwards and calls for a comparison between different stages or ages: beginnings may be better because they are archetypal, original, pure, unspoiled, or may be worse, because they are embryonic, incomplete, unrefined, unpolished, or even coarse. In disclosing views about the origin of being, narrations of the beginning address ontological questions. Glowing with wonder, cosmologies from the ancient East and pre-Socratic speculations investigate the beginning of reality. Divinities are creators in all mythical representations produced by the most ancient societies such as the Sumerian, Babylonian, Assyrian, Egyptian. The Book of Genesis, Hesiod’s Theogony, Plato’s Timeus call for evidence of a commencement which is complex and folded in silence. Even Aristotle postulates a 4 Reykjavik was the venue of the conference on The Cultural Reconstruction of Places, promoted by the European Thematic Network Project ACUME. Cultural Memory in European Countries and held between 24 and 26 June 2005. 14 Paola Spinozzi / Alessandro Zironi Prime Mover who, though immovable, starts the mechanism of being. The relationship between divinity and creativity is deep. Divinity must create; God is the creator by definition. Enquiries into origins involve not only exploring mechanics of creation, but also addressing abysmal issues. The question of questions, as ancient as preSocratic or pre-Platonic thought, is why there is not nothingness. The ancient Greeks loathed nothingness and did not have words for an absolute ex nihilo. The concept of nothing thus acquired a figurative value and was often personified as Death, Sleep, senseless confusion. Hesiod does not explain how, but Chasm gave birth to Erebos and black Night. 5 Creation thus becomes a procreation, an act of fertility. Islamic mysticism is rich in models of creation which form one of the most complex theosophies. Moreover, in Sufism feminine components of creativity are very prominent: the Sophia aeterna revealed to Ibn Arabi as the source of poetic inspiration and divine initiator of love takes the shape of a young woman. The possibility of a creatio ex nihilo is not contemplated: the living beings are the expression of a infinite range of possible beings in which the Divine Being reveals his emanation. The Jewish Masters maintain that this world was not the very first creation of God, who had generated, and then destroyed, other worlds. He did so because, after having created them with justice, he soon realized that justice was not enough to guard them. He then saved this world because, tired of destruction, he created it with mercy, hoping that it would remain. Thus, the first word of the Bible is ‘bereschit’, in the beginning. It does not indicate creation from nothingness, as part of Christian theology maintained, but rather the beginning of the relationship between God and world. Before the creation there were emptiness, darkness and the presence of God. With his word (‘and God said’) he contrasts nothingness and separates light from darkness, wind from water, the time of the day from the time of the night. In one week, the duration of time, God accomplishes creation. In a midrash by the Palestinian Master Tanchumah bar Abba (IV century A.C.) it is told that the primordial and eternal Torah, by which the Eternal created and is eternally creating the universe, is written by black fire on the white fire of his divine lap. The letters of Torah are thus made of fire, and as the flame is constantly changing its form, so the universe changes, even though it is one and unique for all creatures and its nature is eternally immutable. Notwithstanding its immutability, the universe changes, according to the different perspectives and moods of the single creatures who contemplate it, participating in its 5 See Hesiod, Theogony, Works and Days, Testimonia, ed. and trans. by Glenn W. Most (Cambridge – London: Harvard University Press, 2006), ll. 116 – 120; 123 – 133, p. 13. Introduction 15 existence. Every view, deriving from single and always changeable contemplations, has to be saved in individual memory because, owing to its uniqueness, it is a precious wealth. The concept of nothingness has permeated speculative thought in modern and contemporary times. It was Pascal who in his Pens¤es (1670) introduced the issue of nothingness: He who thus considers man will be affrighted at himself, and regard himself as if suspended in his natural body between these two abysses of infinitude and nothing; he will tremble to behold these marvels […]. For after all, what is man in nature? A cipher, compared to infinity; a whole, compared to a cipher; a medium between nothing and all. Infinitely distant from comprehending extremes, equally incapable of seeing the nothing from which he is drawn or the infinite in which he is engulfed, the end of things and their principles are for him invincibly hidden in impenetrable secrecy. 6 Pascal’s reflections are pervaded by a sense of yearning, awe, and anxiety : attempts at understanding the origin and the end are doomed to fail, because they are inscribed in God’s design, which cannot be encompassed by human faculties. Simply, human beings cannot know, because they are unable to grasp the breadth of both infinity and nothingness. Their extension is incommensurable. In Wissenschaft der Logik (The Science of Logic, 1812 – 1816) Hegel emphasized that our ability to use nothingness as a predicate, which generates the apparent oxymoron of the preposition ‘es gibt nichts’, is essential to any serious epistemology. According to Hegel, the beginning is not pure nothingness, but pure non being, from which being will be born. 7 The beginning is not pure nothing, but a nothing from which something is to proceed; therefore being, too, is already contained in the beginning. The beginning, therefore, contains both, being and nothing, is the unity of being and nothing; or is non-being which is at the same time being, and being which is at the same time non-being. 8 6 Pascal’s Pens¤es, or Thoughts on Religion, trans. and ed. by Gertrude Burford Rawlings (Mount Vernon, N.Y.: Peter Pauper Press, 1946), p. 105. 7 Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, Science of Logic (London: Routledge, 2002). See Book One: The Doctrine of Being, in particular With What Must the Science Begin, pp. 67 – 78; Chapter One. Being, pp. 82 – 108, and Book Two: The Doctrine of Essence, in particular Chapter I. Illusory Being, pp. 394 – 408. 8 Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, With What Must the Science Begin, p. 73. 16 Paola Spinozzi / Alessandro Zironi In the beginning there is relation, that is possibility. In Was ist Metaphysik? (What is Metaphysics?, 1929), Heidegger maintained that Hegel’s proposition about pure Being and pure Nothing being one and the same is correct: Being and Nothing hang together, but not because the two things from the point of view of the Hegelian concept of thought are one in their indefiniteness and immediateness, but because Being itself, is finite in essence and is only revealed in the Transcendence of Da-sein as projected into Nothing. 9 Heidegger disrupted ordinary language and syntax barriers by turning ‘nichts’ into the verb ‘nichten’. Though similar to ‘vernichten’, ‘to annihilate’, it acquires a different meaning. As M. J. Inwood explains: Nichtung, ‘noth-ing, nihilating’, is what the Nothing does, just as die Welt weltet, ‘the world worlds’ or light light(en)s. The nothing is used positively: Heidegger is not saying ‘There is not anything that noths’, but ‘Something noths, namely the Nothing’. The Nothing is not to be explicated in terms of negation: ‘it is the origin of denial’. 10 The Nothing does something: it negates. It is thus active and effective, insofar as it generates a negation. A thorough perusal of Hegel’s and Heidegger’s conceptualisations of being and nothingness allowed Sartre to expand on their interrelatedness in L’Þtre et le n¤ant. Essai d’ontologie ph¤nom¤nologique (1943). 11 Being and nothingness become absolutely inseparable: in order to be envisioned, nothingness must be related to being, and as soon as that happens, it disappears as such and leads us back to being. Nothingness can be nihilated only if being is presupposed. Nothingness is neither before nor after nor outside being, but dwells in it. 12 […] no question could be asked, in particular not that of being, if negation did not exist. But this negation itself when inspected more closely referred to us back to Nothingness as its origin and foundation. In order for negation to exist in the world 9 Martin Heidegger, What is Metaphysics, trans. by R. F. C. Hull and Alan Crick, in Existence and Being by Martin Heidegger, with an Introduction by Werner Brock (Chicago: Henry Regnery Company, 1949), pp. 353 – 99. 10 Michael Inwood, ‘Nothing and negation’, in A Heidegger Dictionary (Malden: Blackwell, 1999), p. 145. 11 Jean-Paul Sartre, Being and Nothingness. An Essay on Phenomenological Ontology, trans. by Hazel E. Barnes, Introduction by Mary Warnock (London, Routledge: 2000), Part One. The Problem of Nothingness, pp. 3 – 70, in particular Chapter One. The Origin of Negation, pp. 3 – 45. 12 Jean-Paul Sartre, III. The Phenomenological Concept of Nothingness, in Chapter One. The Origin of Negation, pp. 16 – 21 (p. 21). Introduction 17 and in order that we may consequently raise questions concerning Being, it is necessary that in some way Nothingness be given. We perceived then that Nothingness can be conceived neither outside of being, nor as a complementary, abstract notion, nor as an infinite milieu where being is suspended. Nothingness must be given at the heart of Being, in order for us to be able to apprehend that particular type of realities which we have called n¤gatit¤s. But this intra-mundane Nothingness cannot be produced by Being-in-itself; the notion of Being as full positivity does not contain Nothingness as one of its structures. We can not even say that Being excludes it. Being lacks all relation with it. Hence the question which is put to us now with a particular urgency: […] where does Nothingness come from? 13 It is a question that in this volume has been rephrased as what does Nothingness bring forth? by pursuing the idea that nothing is what leads to being which keeps memory of nothing. Nothing-cum-being is a synonym for origin based on the assumption that a dialogue among scientific and humanistic disciplines requires defining what each of them is, but also envisaging a wider perspective of not being, being and becoming. III. The Routes The reflections about the idea of origins triggered by the journey to Iceland coalesced in a research project presented at the Villa Vigoni, on the Lake Como, in November 2006, during the first brainstorming meeting of the European Thematic Network devoted to Interfacing Sciences, Literature and Humanities. Soon afterwards, at the first General Meeting, which took place in Bertinoro (Italy) in March 2007, sub-project 3 identified origins as a research topic which, owing to its malleability, could stimulate responses from both scientists and humanists. The project was further discussed at a preparatory meeting held at the University of Bologna in June 2007: keywords connected with the idea of origin were identified and research areas to be involved were defined. It is rewarding to notice that most of the topics envisaged at the time have actually been tackled: Homo sapiens features in two chapters, one by Alessandro Achilli and Ugo A. Perego, the other by Paola Spinozzi; the relationships between human and animal behaviour have been investigated by Augusto Vitale; language is delved into by Laura Bafile; an assessment of what is biological and what is cultural in memory is offered by Vita Fortunati and Andrea Grignolio; the emotional sphere is analysed by Marco Dondi, Sergio Agnoli and Laura Franchin; how 13 Jean-Paul Sartre, III. The Phenomenological Concept of Nothingness, in Chapter One. The Origin of Negation, pp. 21 – 22. 18 Paola Spinozzi / Alessandro Zironi stocasticity and environment affect human lifespan is examined by Suresh I. Rattan; Marcella Farioli, Alessandro Zironi, Marusca Francini and Marianne Børch explore how narrations and myths of foundation came into existence and were transmitted; Keith Hoskin discusses how modern forms of disciplining individuals and populations were designed and applied. Scientists and humanists first met at a workshop entitled Decoding the Origins, held at the University of Warwick in December 2007: twelve representatives of specific disciplines, many of whom present in this volume, discussed how origins have been explored in different branches of scholarship, which frameworks have been devised, why certain issues have been addressed or disregarded. After having investigated a wide range of conceptualisations, the conference held in Ferrara in May 2008 was then devoted to identifying common areas of investigation, points of divergence and travelling concepts. Bold as it may seem, our belief is that the task we set upon ourselves has been fulfilled. This volume will prove if our self-assessment may be considered fair. Certainly the authors bear evidence to the initial assumption that the concept of origins fosters the identification of a shared trans-disciplinary terrain where scientists and humanists can meet and experiment on integrated modes of enquiry. IV. The Book Hopefully the statement that Origins as a Paradigm in the Sciences and in the Humanities is not a collection of proceedings will sound genuine, if it is qualified not only by the indication that sections were reconsidered and further collaborations requested, but also by the specification that the research about origins which takes shape in this volume has evolved through the last five years. Part I, entitled Origins in Biological and Cultural Processes, begins by exploring the origins of populations and their expansion through continents and times. Population geneticists have reconnected the whole mankind to a primeval haplogroup from Africa: far from being a discovery which pertains exclusively to the sciences, it clearly raises issues which have an enormous cultural import, because it undermines deeply rooted ideas about racial purity and calls for a wider conceptualization of ethnic groups. The evolutionary approach adopted by population genetics is given further breadth through theories of the origin and evolution of human distinctive traits such as ageing, memory, artistic perception and expression. Nineteenth-century theories of memory offer paradigmatic instances of enquiries into the core of the human being: the belief that experiences and memories of ancestors and parents are encapsulated in our cells, deeply undermined by Darwinian theories, reveals the necessity to detect not only origins, but also permanence through transmission and inheritance. Introduction 19 The chapters included in Part I show how primordial, unchangeable constituents of the human species affect areas of behaviour traditionally considered as individual and arbitrary. What emerges is a complex bio-cultural map of the world, in which life is defined through the constant interplay between hereditary, inborn inclinations and skills gradually acquired. Indeed, if scientists and humanists join their efforts, the interactions between genetic predispositions and the natural and cultural milieu, which can be regarded as a major research area in numerous disciplines, will be studied in its complex multi-faceted-ness. Part II, devoted to Origins of Communication: Behaviours, Emotions, and Languages, focuses on specific human modes of interaction such as empathy and altruism, smiling, language and management. Behavioural patterns and emotional responses prove to be universal to a considerable extent. Again, what requires deeper scrutiny are the processes by which certain innate human attitudes and gestures cease to be essentially automatic and instinctive and begin to be voluntary, because their functionality and social utility have been apprehended. Language can be explained precisely as a human faculty being stimulated by a special intertwinement of inborn and trained abilities. After having examined the anatomical structure of the human phonetic apparatus, linguists have reached the conclusion that the ability to speak is due to a gradual cultural process activated within a prearranged anatomical structure. Not only a basic form of expression as language, but also mediated forms of communication as marketing and strategic management testify to the biological/environmental nexus. Emotional components interfere with transmission and reception of executive tasks: from the propulsive centre, where decisions originate, to the periphery, where they should be enacted, information is inevitably affected by the emotions of all those who are involved in the process. The origin of altruistic behaviours and linguistic skills in human and nonhuman primates, of smiling in early infants, of accounting as a form of social control bring further evidence supporting the theory that the study of the interaction between innate dispositions and developmental and cultural transformations is an endeavour requiring synergic contributions from the sciences and the humanities. Part III, entitled Quests for Origins: Mappings, Narrations and Representations, explores how the genesis and development of the universe, earth and man were narrated in literary sources dating to different historical and cultural periods. A deeper insight into narrations of origins in ancient epochs can be gained by adopting a comparative approach: cosmogonies, theogonies and anthropogonies in classical and Old Norse culture provide emblematic case studies. History summoned to show origins can be powerfully manipulated to fulfil different purposes, as appears from different chronicles of the same events. Constructed in order to convey specific ideological contents, historical accounts 20 Paola Spinozzi / Alessandro Zironi of the formation of a country intertwine facts and mythical elements. The origins of Anglo-Saxon England as related in different texts are a remarkable case study. The definition of originality also acquires different meanings in different historical periods. In the Middle Ages invention entailed the certainty that everything already existed and nothing could be newly created, because creation had already been accomplished. The beginning of the modern age entailed overcoming the medieval idealisation of perfect immutability. Originality in relation to invention thus allows for detecting semantic changes which enclose changing world views and, consequently, paradigms shifts. The final chapter of the volume delves into the concept of paradigm. Does it work, applied to origins? If we consider that a paradigm is a clearly defined and coherent set of concepts, we will have to admit that the definition only partially applies to the concept of origins. Owing to its flexibility, it could be defined as a hyper-paradigm, because it is connected with a cluster of paradigms formed within different disciplines. Indeed, its ubiquitous, flexible nature has been fundamental for establishing a sustained dialogue between the sciences and the humanities. Achieving cohesion while pointing out specificities can be regarded as a goal from which interesting results have ensued. While the chapters well portray the state of the arts on the idea of origins articulated by various disciplines, they reveal that identifying trans-disciplinary paths has not always proved an easy task. Making interface is of course an intriguing challenge, but the questions remains as to who, between humanities scholars and scientists, can bring ‘the other’ in more easily and thought-provokingly. V. Coalescences The horror vacui felt by ancient civilisations when facing questions about the creation of cosmos has resurfaced in the sense of suspension with which contemporary age responds to relativism and to the awareness that no new theorization can elude the notion of chance. The belief in immutability was shattered in the nineteenth century : what for thousands of years had been considered unmodifiable – universe, nature, man, life – was instead subject to chance. Nowadays the structure of the DNA and the mechanisms of life, ageing and death would not be understandable without the notion of stochasticity. The acknowledgement that only the concept of complexity can encompass the acquisition of knowledge and the still partial understanding about the human body, the laws of nature, and universe, are dizzying. Mapping the world with clear indications about origins can be considered as still another re-enactment of the search for the primeval status, a striving for the Introduction 21 correspondence between microcosm and macrocosm. Origins are still alluring. Because they generate endless speculations and do not cease to prompt quests, we would almost be tempted to say that the abyss from which all was created is, above all, an invention conjured up by the human mind. However, explanations which do not dwell on the ineffable, bewildering components of human nature prove more productive. Origins are a crucial theme in a world which is remodelling itself while coping with globalization. Western culture, after having prevailed for so many centuries, has acknowledged that its role must be revised and reframed. The last G8’s meeting held in Italy in July 2009 emphasised that inter-governmental institutions should be re-constituted in order to include non-western countries such as China and India. In this context of transformation, a sustained debate on the idea of origins can help envision a new world. Interestingly, the search for origins seems to subvert a notion associated with the Two Cultures, according to which science should pursue the progress of mankind, while humanistic studies, framed within a historical perspective, are supposed to focus on the past. In fact, the geneticists studying the DNA, the gerontologists researching ageing, the primatologists and psychologists experimenting on innate or acquired components of behaviours offer scientific views of origins which explore the biological history of humans in order to understand how they ‘work’ now. It would be absurd to define what being humans means by attempting to grasp the degree zero, to fabricate a state totally unaffected by external factors: an environment and the ability to shape it are fundamental for human life. New disciplines originate from continuity of knowledge, new research orientations develop with the aid of methodological instruments shaped in specific fields and re-shaped in others. Thus, a productive endeavour to be shared by the sciences and the humanities is the assessment of what the outset – any possible outset – was, how it has metamorphosed while being transmitted to the present and how it will continue to change in the future.