|
he
war on terrorism has absorbed our attention since September 11th.
While this is appropriate, we should not forget that the long-simmering
cultural wars continue. The other side is hard at work, chipping
away patiently while all eyes are turned toward Afghanistan.
The latest
threat? Courtesy of PBS, the bonobos the "make love,
not war" primates are coming to a high school near you
for a lesson in evolutionary-sex education.
It all started
during that dark week this last September. PBS aired a seven-part
series called volution, a program that, given the attack,
very few bothered to watch. Prominently featured in the fifth episode,
"Why Sex?", were the infamous bonobos.
It was a flashback
to the '60s. Different war, same message from the Left: Sex can
save us from war. This time, however, it was served with science,
not drugs and rock n' roll.
The damage,
unfortunately, isn't confined to those few who might have tuned
into PBS in the days after the attack. PBS has packaged the Evolution
series, and is now, peddling it, along with heavy-handed curricular
support, to high schools across the nation. They've got major a
interactive website, a teacher's guide, newsletters, support seminars
and videos, online courses, a companion book, a traveling propaganda
show, and of course the packaged series itself. In short, PBS is
offering enough support services for a war a culture war.
There is no
doubt on which side of the cultural divide Evolution resides.
In "Why Sex?" the conflict between Left and Right was
played by bonobos and chimps respectively.
Chimps are
male-dominated; the males are aggressive; the females are timid
and submissive; and disputes are settled by violence. Worse yet,
they use sex for procreation. (Gasp!)
But, Oh!, the
bonobo. These lovely ancestors are female-dominated, egalitarian,
nearly vegetarian, pansexual, and settle disputes by
well
by
sex.
And not just any sex, but every kind of sex. Sure, males
and females sometimes unite, but so do females and females, males
and males, and adults and juveniles. Just so there are no doubters
in the audience, PBS provided ample footage.
The central,
non-too-subtle message, wrapped in the mantle of evolutionary science,
was both clearly stated and vividly illustrated: We human beings
would be better off to imitate our ancestors the bonobos, rather
than the chimps. The use of science to forward a particular moral
and political agenda could not have been bolder.
The bonobo
sequence came from the school of primatologist Frans de Waal, C.
H. Candler Professor of Primate Behavior at Emory University. Author
of many books on the social behavior of primates, he recently collaborated
with Frans Lanting, a wildlife photographer, to create
Bonobo: The Forgotten Ape which according to one reviewer,
shows that "Bonobos represent the silver lining in our ape
heritage."
Picture-wise,
Bonobo,
the book, is unforgettable. As it turns out, bonobos are even more
inventive sexually than depicted in the lurid sequences in PBS's
"Why Sex?" But the point for de Waal and for PBS is the
same. Here, in the bonobo, we have (in de Waal's words) "a
politically correct primate," the study of which "could
lead to a revised view of the origins of human nature." Revisionist
science? Why so?
Evolution has
always been pushed by the Left because it helps rid the world of
brooding deities and hard-line moralities. But one unpleasant aspect
of linking up with the primates has haunted this effort. According
to accepted evolutionary theory, we are most directly related to
the chimpanzee, among whom (in de Waal's words) the "males
are conspicuously dominant over females; they reign supremely and
often brutally." Our closest fore-apes are quite aggressive
all the way around, fighting not only over food, but females and
territory as well. Alas, evolution seemed to provide evidence for
the naturalness of the military-industrial complex as run by macho
males who lord it over their submissive wives.
Enter the bonobo,
discovered in 1929, the "make love, not war" evolutionary
answer to the secular Left's dilemma. The bonobo, classed as Pan
paniscus ("diminutive Pan" because they seemed smaller
than the chimpanzee also in the genus Pan), would better be called,
jokes de Waal, by the old taxonomic name of the chimpanzee, Pan
satyrus, referring to "the myth of apes as lustful satyrs."
All this lust,
however, serves an admirable evolutionary goal, so the argument
goes: the substitution of sex for aggression. Throw a banana into
a cage full of chimpanzees and the males immediately fight, while
the females cower. What happens when you throw a banana into a cage
full of bonobos? As de Waal reports, "As soon as a caretaker
approached the enclosure with food, the males would develop erections.
Even before the food was thrown into the area, the bonobos would
be inviting each other for sex: males would invite females, and
females would invite males and other females."
Such behavior
has also been observed in the wild where, once a food source was
procured by the bonobo group, scientists observed a "flurry
of sexual contacts [which] would last for five to 10 minutes, after
which the apes would settle down to consume the food." The
lesson is too obvious: "sexual activity is the bonobo's answer
to avoiding conflict."
The only difference
between de Waal's analysis and PBS's, is that the scientific consensus
of the series seemed to be that, drat it all!, we really did evolve
from the chimp. If only we truly had inherited our proximate genes
from the bonobos, mused the narrator of "Why Sex?" wistfully,
"we might have evolved to be a totally different, more peaceful,
less violent, more sexual species."
The message,
unfortunately, isn't isolated. The series was designed as part of
a larger educational package meant to wend its way into the nation's
various science curricula. Whatever the merits of the rest of the
series, "Why Sex?" was carefully crafted to serve the
agenda of the leftward leaners, and this packaging tactic will be
all the more effective, because young minds will be all the more
susceptible to the "make love" message amidst the struggles
and uncertainties of war.
|