The Denial of Death as A Denial of Alternative Arguments
I have problems with this book.
Does anyone who happens to come across this post have any sort of expertise in the field of human evolution or the thought of Ernest Becker? It seems to me that the overall discourse presented is intentionally one-sided and it's bugging the ever-living shit out of me.
The problem is illustrated in--but not limited to--the paragraph below:
The argument from biology and evolution is basic and has to be taken seriously; I don't see how it can be left out of any discussion. Animals in order to survive have had to be protected by fear-responses, in relation not only to other animals but to nature itself. They had to see the real relationship of their limited powers to the dangerous world in which they were immersed. Reality and fear go together naturally. As the human infant is in an even more exposed and helpless situation, it is foolish to assume that the fear response of animals would have disappeared in such a weak and highly sensitive species. It is more reasonable to think that it was instead heightened, as some of the early Darwinians thought: early men who were most afraid were those who were most realistic about their situation in nature, and they passed on to their offspring a realism that had a high survival value. The result was the emergence of man as we know him: a hyperanxious animal who constantly invents reasons for anxiety even where there are none.
Becker's work is one of the cornerstones of Terror Management Theory. But it appears to me that Becker is guilty of flagrant sins of omission (by way of oversimplication) in this text, so far (see below*). The paragraph above-- found on pg 17 of the Free Press Paperback--is just one example. It seems that he is overstating his view of human psychology, emphasizing "the negative" and not at all addressing the role such impulses or drives such as love or joy might play in human psychology. What is truly disturbing me is that this work seems to be attempting this on the sly. In the last sentence of the paragraph above for example, he is referencing "Man as WE know him" and then providing a definition of man as a paranoid, hypochondriacal jackass who wouldn't recognize tranquility if it kicked him in his own arse; one who is only happy being miserable (I'm paraphrasing here). The problem arises in that that is not how "we" know humankind. (for the record I have no problem with any other part of that paragraph; it's this last sentence that shits the bugs out of me) Granted there are aspects of this and to be sure, prime examples galore, but there are also other traits possessed by the human animal which seem to be generally--and deliberately--ignored in this text, thus making what I assume to be the Central Argument, that much more tenable: that this Fear Of Death is the primary human motivation, the bedrock on which all other motivations arise.
It just seems too convenient. (translated: not at all honest)
I've put the book on hold. I haven't been able to proceed beyond the first three chapters as I can't accept the veracity of what he is saying. His writing has an annoying haughty "as we have seen from my previous chapter..." aire (and explicitness) to it and "we" haven't seen a lot of it. Moving on to finish Spook Country and then a book by Leon Festinger, and THEN, I will resume my fight with Becker and his partial inquiry. If anyone has any thoughts to share on Becker, this tendency towards ommission, or anything at all - I'd be stoked.
And on an unrelated point:
Remember: Take It Easy!