— Editorial Reader

From contributor Phineas Upham

The word evolution has changed its meaning over the past century with the introduction of Darwinian theories. Despite this shift in usage, many of the connotations and shades of meaning of older usages have carried over to today. The word evolution is sometimes used today as a crude amalgamation of two usages of the word and is thus often misused. In The Anthropology Journal Herbert Spenson uses one of the word evolution’s contemporary meaning. He mistake of assuming that Darwinianesk evolution is a forward, upward moving force is typical of the common misuse of the word.

Keywords, by Raymond Williams, analyzes the history of the changes in usage of the word evolution. Evolution, Williams explains, is derived for the French word évolution, which is derived from the Latin evolutionem. This Latin root word means unrolling a book (the Romans used scrolls as books). This rather limited definition was soon broadened to mean the revealing of an unknown but already complete plan. In 1762, the word became popularized by Bonnet in his theory of evolution. Evolution came to mean the development “from [A] rudamentry to mature [state]” (Williams, 120). This transition connoted a move from a lower to a higher level of development. When Darwin formally introduced his theory of evolution in The Origin of Species in 1854, he used the word in a different way. Evolution for Darwin was not progress but adaptation. Thus an animal evolved to better suit its circumstances, its new state was not inherently better. In fact, two animals in different circumstances can evolve in opposite directions without contradiction. The definition of evolution thus had competing meanings.

The Oxford English Dictionary defines Evolution in many different ways. The first definition given is “The prosses of unfolding, opening out, or disengaging from an envelope.” I have never run across the word evolution used in this way, and this is certainly not a dominant meaning. One must go to definition number six before the standard usage is introduced. The dictionary clearly separates the different uses of evolution and delineates their appropriate use. In common language these distinctions are not always respected.

Herbert Spenson wrote an article in The Anthropology Journal which uses evolution in a way which mixes the preDarwinian and Darwinian aspects of the word. “The opposable thumb evolved, through natural selection, as a superior tool for the advancement of the species.” His reference to natural selection gives evolution a distinctly Darwinian flavor, and yet his ideas of ”advancement” and “superior” also brings in the idea of evolution as a progression form a lower state to a higher one. He is thus mixing different definitions.

The word evolution has gone through many changes in definition. The OED seems to incorrectly order its definitions in terms of contemporary importance but includes all the historical usages of the word. The one of the common contemporary usages of the word evolution is a combination of the two latest meanings of the word, that of Bonnet and that of Darwin. Words change meaning gradually, often with each new use overlapping the old uses. Thus, as in the case of the word evolution, words often have more than one meaning at a time.

About the Author
Phineas Upham has an extensive educational background in philosophy and economics. He contributes editorials on philosophy, culture, and more. For more from Phineas Upham, visit his website at PhineasUpham.com.

From contributing author Phineas Upham

As debate about Afghanistan and Iraq rages in the US, and Radio Free America tries to spread free market ideas and encourage democracy in the former USSR and Middle East, it is often left out that experience is the best teacher. We should be welcoming the best youths of the world to visit and spend time in America. The Arab Spring, perhaps the most successful movement for (so far) positive change of the last decade, was built by youth who demanded more. In 1959 at the height of the cold war Nixon and Khrushchev passed by a working model of the average kitchen in America – and it blew the Soviet leader away, putting him immediately on the defensive.

Seeing and experiencing America – on TV and especially in person – shows others the great wealth and freedom most US citizens enjoy. Rather than restricting travel of others to America on vacation and schooling, or making it very difficult to get short term work visas, we should be using it as a key foreign policy – encouraging the next generation of influencers to spend time here and return home to improve their nations, to “go and do likewise.”

We should identify and encourage young people from abroad who are likely to be influential as media workers or political and academic leaders to spend time studying in the United States. These students, primarily from troubled countries with uneasy relations with the Unites States, would return to work in their homelands and, in speaking of their U.S. experiences, help dispel myths. Candidates from Pakistan, Zimbabwe and Saudi Arabia, for example.

Whatever the shortcomings of the Peace Corps, it has in many ways proven to be an appealing and powerful organization to US youth and shaped many lives for the better. A similar program might be implemented to mobilize a small U.S. civil service corps of volunteer college graduates could work off their government college loans for two years in foreign service. These volunteers could expand their horizons and work on a worthy cause when they are both reasonably mature and largely unencumbered by family or career considerations. They would identify promising and open-minded young students in selected countries, particularly those interested in careers in journalism, government and the academy, and help them apply for exchange programs, admission and scholarships to U.S. schools. People should be encouraged to host students and young activists who want to visit the US for a time.

The premise of this program is that ignorance of the United States is partly responsible for anti-democratic attitudes abroad. People who have never lived here cannot effectively screen out caricatures and lies presented by their closest sources of information – biased local and regional media, politicians playing to the worst in people, academics who may not know any better. Offering future opinion shapers direct experience of the United States might go a long way in providing a framework for more discerning and open minds in the next generation of people who create the climate of opinion of other nations.

Education is one of our greatest exports, and in doing foreign service and offering opportunities for a U.S. education, these volunteers would present the young and vibrant face of the United States to the people of these other nations. In gaining familiarity with the cultures of the countries they visit, those U.S. volunteers would also bring experienced voices to cultural and political discussions back home and become more involved with national service throughout their lives. This program would thus benefit our own young while improving relations with others.

Phineas Upham is a regular contributor to the Editorial Reader, and the curator of our Philosophy section.