The Wisdom of the Body: Discovering the Human Spirit
Nuland, Sherwin B. 1997. The Wisdom of the Body: Discovering the Human Spirit. 1st ed. Knopf.
Rating:
8
Summary:
As I understood this book, the author is attempting to accomplish two basic goals. The first is to convey a sense of wonderment, respect, and awe for the human body. This is accomplished by combining stories from his career as a general surgeon and personal life with clear explanations of how the body works.
The second purpose is to make a philosophical argument concerning what the author calls the ‘human spirit’ or humanity’s ‘soul.’ It takes a while before his argument on this front becomes clear, but he is basically arguing that the ‘human spirit’ is the result of two things: (1) our cellular processes, and (2) our drive to procreate (see pp. xxi, xxiii, 84, 118, 158, 357).
The first component of the human spirit argued by the author is the idea that, “the general pattern of cellular events and organization is transmitted upward by means of this continuum through gradually increasing levels, until it imprints itself on our very patterns of interpreting external events and responding to them. It is by this means that our lives, I contend, and even our culture come to be influenced by, and are the reflection of, the conflict that exists within cells, between forces that would break them down and forces that would build them up. In our cells and in our daily existence, that conflict and the inherent instability that we employ in our constant striving for equilibrium and homeostasis are the underlying principles, I would propose, that form the basis of everything we are” (p. 84, see also the quote from p. 118) In short, the author believes the development of society, culture, and human individuality are nothing more than the highest levels of expression of our individual cells.
The second component of the human spirit argued by the author is the idea that humans are driven by their desire to procreate, “The ovum wants only one thing: not to die unfertilized. All of those passions and poems, all of those rages and roses, all of that sexiness and subtlety with which humankind has adorned the sweet prelude to fertilization, are in the service of the ovum’s need. Empires fall, ids explode, great symphonies are written, and behind all of it is a single instinct that demands satisfaction – the ovum must have its way. So purposeful is the ovum in its quest that it figuratively contorts and drives the mind of humanity in ways we have barely begun to understand. With disguises and subterfuges to entrap and allure, the little seductress makes the goal so desirable that it sometimes seems beyond attainment, and therefore more to be pursued” (p. 158). Combining these two notions, the author makes the philosophical argument that human society and culture – along with individual-level human behavior – can all be understood as being derived from our cells and the desires and drives that they generate within is.
The author concludes by noting that an appreciation of ‘the wisdom of the body’ along with his philosophical understanding of it do not necessarily deny the existence of god(s). What his understanding of science and human biology does do, however, is limit ‘the gap of the gods,’ reducing the explanatory realm of religion. He argues that it is still possible to accept his ideas and believe in a god, even though he, personally, does not (see pp. xxiii and 367 for examples of this argument).
Review:
This book succeeds on a number of fronts, but also comes up short in one of its primary arguments. I should first point out how the book succeeds. It is, without doubt, a very well-written book. The author certainly has a gift for clearly explaining biological concepts. He is also a gifted writer with the ability to tell powerful stories and generate engaging imagery. Thus, as far as the caliber of the writing and the author’s ability to explain biological concepts go, this book is a remarkable success.
Additionally, the author’s respect and awe at the human body is always present, which is reassuring to hear from a surgeon. Repeating a thought by Ralph Waldo Emerson, the author argues that, “One moment of a man’s life is a fact so stupendous as to take the lustre out of all fiction” (p. 123). Of course, I do need to qualify this statement. It is, indeed, stupendous, but certainly not a miracle, as the author describes it on page three (‘miracles with flaws’). A miracle would imply that we have no understanding of how ‘we’ happened. As the book clearly illustrates, we are making quite a bit of progress on that front. So, while I agree that life is amazing, I would not go so far as to call it miraculous. Calling it a ‘miracle’ feeds into religious ideologies, which is, in all likelihood, not the author’s intent.
Having pointed out some of the good, let me know turn to some of the bad. As I read the book, I found myself most impressed by the author’s stories. This was followed by the author’s explanations of human biology. The least impressive element of this book was his philosophy. Perhaps it is the result of my scientific training as a social scientist that I found his idea of human culture, society, and individuality deriving from cellular processes a bit over-the-top. Of course, there is no denying the influence of genetics on much of human behavior. And when the author sticks to the idea that procreation is humanity’s driving force, I don’t disagree (though his description of the ovum as the ‘almighty’ was stretching things a bit; see p. 158). But to argue that humanity’s conflicts result from nothing less than the internal conflict found within our bodies and cells is taking this idea too far.
At the risk of pressing the issue into the realm refuted by Stephen J. Gould in The Mismeasure of Man, I have to ask – what is the mechanism by which these conflicts are conveyed into human action? Of course, one could argue that Nuland’s idea is a typology of sorts (similar to current understandings of Freud’s Id, Ego, and Superego) that does not correspond to any particular biological processes. I’m willing to grant the notion that he has not outlined an actual, physical mechanism, but then one wonders whether he is presenting an ideology rather than a theory. A theory has to be able to generate testable propositions. Without those propositions, Nuland is dabbling in non-falsifiable philosophy and not science.
Yet, while I do not agree with Nuland’s notion that what makes someone human is nothing more than some mystical property of the interconnections between their cells, I have to admit that at a fundamental level he is right – humans are multi-cellular organisms. Unfortunately, Nuland has not presented a clear argument as to how this multi-cellular organism has become self-aware, which, I believe, is the real distinguishing characteristic of human nature or his ‘human spirit’. After all, if a drive to procreation and/or being multi-cellular and/or having some form of society is all that is required, then there are any number of plants and animals that could be argued to have his ‘human spirit.’
Arguments like that outlined on page 246 are what really led to my disagreeing with his concept. In discussing a man’s heart transplant, the individual reveals that he is having some ‘discriminatory’ thoughts in the sense that he isn’t sure if he wants to know if his heart came from someone other than a white person because he doesn’t know how he would handle that fact. Nuland’s response is an application of his philosophy, “He told me he was concerned that I might construe his comments to have what he called a “discriminatory” tone. But I doubt whether feelings like his arise from simple bigotry. I think they have to do with that inherent rejection of otherness – the ancient xenophobia we have learned from every cell that has ever existed on earth.” If Nuland was right, then every recipient of a transplant would feel the same xenophobic feelings. While I’m certainly not an expert on the feelings of transplant patients, my guess is that they don’t. And if they don’t, then this individual’s feelings are the result of a cultural transmission of bigotry and have nothing to do with the body’s rejection of alien elements. In short, I just don’t find Nuland’s argument convincing.
There is certainly some merit in Nuland’s argument here, but I think it needs to be modified to the following: For whatever reason, our particular arrangement of DNA has resulted in self-awareness, which appears to have emergent properties, like culture and society. Culture and society are certainly spurred by our cells’ desire to pass on their DNA, as a social arrangement is better suited for individual-level survival. But explaining prejudices and bigotry requires some long logical chains in order to be attributed to cellular-level bigotry, as in the case of the heart transplant patient (e.g. holding prejudices increases the likelihood of the prejudiced individual procreating). But the heart transplant patient’s case is also a firm refutation of this idea in that not all heart transplant patients hold these prejudices and he is in no way competing with the person who died for resources in order to reproduce – the other person is already dead. Nuland’s idea is certainly an important component in understanding human behavior and society, but there is obviously more to it.
While I appreciate Nuland’s attempts to cross disciplinary boundaries in the sciences and attempt to explain psychological, sociological, and philosophical ideas using his understanding of biology, I was also unconvinced by it. Sociologists like to refer to individuals like this as ‘armchair sociologists’; people who make some personal observations (most of Nuland’s sociological and philosophical ideas are derived from convenience samples) and then believe they have found out how society works. I don’t want to discourage Nuland’s boundary crossing, but he’ll need to spend a bit more time exploring the other disciplines before he can really develop sound arguments. It seems the old adage ‘when all you have is a hammer…’ has some merit here as well. ‘When all you have is biological understanding… everything begins to look like it has biological underpinnings.’ Maybe it does, but until a prejudice gene surfaces, any biological explanations of the rise of prejudice (e.g. competition for reproductive resources) are most likely going to be post hoc hypotheses, which tend to be less than scientific.
My final criticism is going to take me into Nuland’s realm of biology for a minute, but as it is a minor criticism, I’m willing to make the foray. Nuland develops another argument that I think he misconstrues a bit, “It is homeostasis, the dependability and steadiness of the internal environment, that keeps us alive. The structure of the arteries and veins and the manner in which they function are based on their critical role in maintaining the equilibrium of the milieu interieur” (p. 33). Nuland talks about homeostasis and the maintenance of equilibrium quite a bit throughout the book, but unfortunately paints it differently than he did in the introduction, where I think he got it right. In most of the book he talks about it as the maintenance of order or balance and overlooks the importance of change. Considering sociology went through this same argument (Parsonian Structural Functionalism) before the importance of conflict and change was illustrated (Conflict Theory), I think Nuland needs to do a better job emphasizing the importance of conflict and change in the body like he does in the introduction, “A stable system is not a system that never changes. It is a system that constantly and instantly adjusts and readjusts in order to maintain such a state of being that all necessary functions are permitted to operate at maximal efficiency. Stability demands change to compensate for changing circumstances. Ultimately, then, stability depends on instability” (p. xix).
In conclusion, I can see the attraction of this book in its engaging stories, appreciation and awe of the human body, and explanations of biological concepts. The philosophical elements, unfortunately, do not hold up under close scrutiny. Biology is undoubtedly an important component of social life, but it does not appear to be the only component – socialization and the nurturing environment are also important and Nuland seems to downplay these two components to the point that they disappear entirely. If the author had focused less on the philosophy component of the book and more on the other elements, I would be more inclined to recommend it. As it stands, I think it will be most well-received within the discipline that produced – the biological sciences.