Awe versus Wonder

The great fun of reading and watching a wide variety of things is the discovery of unexpected connections. Today we have: Gentleman Jole and the Red Queen, the (apparently) final book in Lois McMaster Bujold’s Vorkosigan Saga, a widely loved work of science fiction; Barbara Kingsolver’s Flight Behavior, a prizewinning 2012 novel set in rural Appalachia; and… the life story of Dante Alighieri, the medieval author of The Divine Comedy, a three-part work of which “Inferno” is probably the most famous and familiar. Between them, I realized it’s high time for me to write about something I’ve been thinking about for years: a useful distinction we can make between “awe” and “wonder.”

Let’s start with Oliver Jole. He’s the admiral of the space fleet of the planet Barrayar, stationed above the planet Sergyar, discovered about 40 years previously. The humans colonizing Sergyar have been learning how to co-exist with its rich and fascinating native ecology, but Oliver hasn’t seen much of that. He’s basically a bureaucrat, keeping his crews and ships ready in case of war, although thankfully things have been peaceful. He’s also turning 50 years old, and wondering about the next stages of his life. Oliver’s long-time love interest has recently passed away at age 87, which was still middle-aged because human life expectancy has improved. Now he’s considering whether to start a new relationship. He’s also considering whether to have children, which no longer requires a female partner or surrogate because conception and gestation can be handled in a laboratory. With these topics on his mind, he heads to the countryside for a weekend date with an old friend (and potential new lover), Cordelia Vorkosigan. They go sailing, get drenched in a sudden rainstorm, and spend a romantic night together, and then the next day they go out on the lake again, this time in an unusual, transparent canoe. From page 129:

“Oh, you have to see all this,” said Cordelia, the first words she had spoken for a while. “Turn around and take a look.”

Jole shipped his paddle, grasped the thwarts, and swung around with all the due care of a fully dressed man not wishing to convert his boat ride into a swim. The canoe was broad in the beam, however, and quite stable for its class. He stared down through the hull, and then, after a moment, slid to his knees for a closer view. And then to his hands and knees.

It was like being a bird looking down through an alien forest. He could count three…six, eight different sorts of little creatures moving through the shading stems. Even more shapes than the round and six-limbed models familiar from dry land, and remarkable subtle colors, reds and blues, silvery and orange, in stripes and spots and chevrons. A larger ovoid slid past, then jerked aside; its… meal?… escaped in a gold flash and a cloud of bronze smoke, and Jole laughed half in surprise, half in delight. “What are all those things? What are they called?” And why, for all the times he’d skimmed over this very lake, had he never noticed them before?

Now let’s turn to Flight Behavior, which I just finished reading last night. It starts with our point-of-view character, Dellarobia Turnbow, hiking up the mountain behind the Tennessee property where she lives with her dull-witted but generally kind husband and their two small children, next-door to her rather tiresome parents-in-law. Dellarobia needs something more from life. At this point she’s prepared to throw away everything she has for a tryst with a hot young guy she’s met, and as her thoughts go on and on, we readers hope she’ll rethink that decision, although what she’d be throwing away may not be that great. As she approaches the place they’ve planned to meet, though, Dellarobia comes across something extraordinary. (I’m going to condense the text, as it lasts for several pages, pages 13-16.)

“…here something was wrong. Or just strange. … The view across the valley was puzzling and unreal, like a sci-fi movie. … The branches seemed to writhe. She took a small automatic step backward from the overlook and the worrisome trees, although they stood far away across the thin air of the hollow. She reached into her purse for a cigarette, then stopped.

“A small shift between cloud and sun altered the daylight, and the whole landscape intensified, brightening before her eyes. The forest blazed with its own internal flame. “Jesus,” she said, not calling for help, she and Jesus weren’t that close, but putting her voice in the world because nothing else present made sense. The sun slipped out by another degree, passing its warmth across the land, and the mountain seemed to explode with light. … “Jesus God,” she said again. No words came to her that seemed sane. Trees turned to fire, a burning bush. … A forest fire, if that’s what it was, would roar. This consternation swept the mountain in perfect silence. …

She was on her own here, staring at glowing trees. Fascination curled itself around her fright. This was no forest fire. She was pressed by the quiet elation of escape and knowing better and seeing straight through to the back of herself, in solitude. She couldn’t remember when she’d had such room for being. … Unearthly beauty had appeared to her, a vision of glory to stop her in the road. … A valley of lights, an ethereal wind. It had to mean something. … The burning trees were put here to save her. It was the strangest conviction she’d ever known, and still she felt sure of it. … Her eyes still signaled warning to her brain, like a car alarm gone off somewhere in an empty parking lot. She failed to heed it, understanding for the moment some formula for living that transcended fear and safety. She only wondered how long she could watch the spectacle before turning away. It was a lake of fire, something far more fierce and wondrous than either of those elements alone. The impossible.”

Several days pass before Dellarobia heads up the mountain again, and this time she brings her glasses (which she’d left at home before, wanting to look good for her prospective lover). I don’t want to give a spoiler here, but I can say that what’s actually there is both astonishing and reasonably consistent with real-world biology. Hint: You could see something very much like this if you visited a certain region of Mexico at the right time of year.

The event becomes a turning point in Dellarobia’s life, as scientists, activists, and journalists all come to the mountain. As the reader has long suspected, she’s actually very bright – her problem is that the world of her daily life has been much too small. Pregnant and married at 17, she’s been isolated at home with her two little kids; the world has been passing her by.

These two books obviously have some things in common. They’re written by American women and were published three years apart. They both have a character named Cordelia! And – most relevant for what I’m writing about today – they are each about someone who has an experience of the natural world that leads them to become fascinated with biology as a science. The two experiences, though, are very different in one important way.

For Oliver Jole, seeing the bizarre aquatic creatures in Lake Serena is an experience of wonder – he is drawn in by its beauty and his curiosity, and he immediately starts asking questions that would let him see the creatures as part of a larger system.

For Dellarobia, seeing the strangeness of the forested valley is an experience of awe – it completely pulls her away from what she was already thinking and doing; she isn’t sure whether to be afraid or not. She wants to know how it fits into the big picture of how things work, but her initial impression of “forest fire” is clearly wrong, and she’s too skeptical for a religious explanation. However, even without an explanation she feels the experience has changed her life. It’s only later that she can start to put together an accurate understanding of how the world has changed.

People often lump wonder and awe together (including, apparently, Dacher Keltner, the world’s leading scientist studying awe), but the distinction can be important. Awe pulls you out of your conventional and current mental world to grab your full attention. It’s not necessarily a positive or a negative experience in itself, although it can lead to wonder (if it’s relatively benign and you have the space to think about things) or shock (if it’s disrupting your world in a potentially major way). It says, “Your way of thinking Continue reading

Posted in narrative science | Tagged , , | 1 Comment

Complicating the Story of Humanity

How did we get to be “civilized”? Here’s the big-picture story most of us have learned.

For hundreds of thousands of years, humans lived in small bands that wandered the land, hunting for meat and fish, and foraging for nuts, fruits, edible leaves and tubers, fungi, shellfish, and so on. Eventually some folks domesticated the various species of grazing animals, which gave them milk and sometimes meat, ready to hand.

Then, about 10,000 years ago, grain crops were domesticated in a major agricultural revolution, and because grains can be stored, the surplus crops led to the rise of cities, in which hierarchies organized those crop surpluses, with a king at the top and a warrior class to defend the cities against outsiders. Similar stories are told for each of the great centers of early civilization: the Fertile Crescent in Mesopotamia, the Nile valley in Egypt, the Indus people of India, the earliest Chinese, and the great city-builders in Mexico and the Andes.

Eventually, the story goes, the intellectuals of Western Europe took things a step further and created modern democracy, inspired by the ancient Greeks. This step allowed us to transform our social lives into a much more fair system that echoed the egalitarianism of the early foragers.

Obviously, this is a self-congratulatory meta-narrative of Progress, although many have some ambivalence about it. For example, the ecologist Paul Shepard and other environmental writers have recast the story as a tale of loss and estrangement from the natural world.

However… I’ve just finished reading a fascinating book that explains how and why the story we tell about civilization ought to be much more complicated than the one I’ve just summarized. The Dawn of Everything, by anthropologist David Graeber and archaeologist David Wengrow, purports to be, as its subtitle tells us, “A New History of Humanity.” They point out that the standard meta-narrative of civilization is misleadingly oversimplified and downright inaccurate.
Continue reading

Posted in history, narrative science | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

Mighty Ducks, Under-Dawgs

Yesterday, alas, we may have seen the psychological power of meta-narratives in action, in a different arena than usual – Allegiant Stadium in Las Vegas, to be more precise.

As my readers know by now, meta-narratives are the story-based frameworks we use to make sense of the world from the perspective of the groups we belong to. Familiar examples include believing we need to make our group (a particular country) “great again,” or that we need to save our group (all of humanity, or the biosphere itself) from further climate-based disruptions, or, in the words of Martin Luther King, Jr., that the long arc of the moral universe bends toward justice. In other words, meta-narratives are beliefs about what’s happening with one’s group over time, the big-picture stories.

Sports teams are also groups, and as any fan of the Chicago Cubs will tell you (although surely they won’t put it that way), sports teams can have meta-narratives too.

ducks_logoSo… speaking of sports teams, I’m a fan of the University of Oregon Ducks. My immediate family (parents, uncle, sister, and sons) and I have all attended the university, which is just a couple miles north of where I live right now. In fact, if I’m correctly remembering when my sister graduated, we’ve had someone at the U of O in each of the past eight decades. I’m the only one in the family who cares about sports, though. Go Ducks!!

Oregon’s official rival is Oregon State, a fine university about 40 miles northwest of us, in Corvallis. It’s a gentle rivalry, for the most part – more a matter of teasing than strong feelings. If Oregon isn’t in the Continue reading

Posted in narrative science | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Why do we have “human rights”?

Where did we get the idea that all people, not just those most like ourselves, should have basic, fundamental, “self-evident” rights? The historian Lynn Hunt has a theory – she credits the novelist Samuel Richardson.

Samuel_Richardson_by_Mason_Chamberlin

In her book, Inventing Human Rights: A History, Hunt describes how Richardson’s first novel, Pamela, published in 1740, became a major cultural event. Women and men alike found themselves totally enthralled by the story – one village even rang its church bells upon hearing a rumor of a happy ending. A few years later, Richardson’s second novel, Clarissa, was published, and the two books inspired a third, Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s Julie, published in 1761. (Yes, that Rousseau, the one who wrote The Social Contract and became a major political philosopher.)

In each of these books, a young woman is pursued by a man who very much wants to seduce her, with no intention of marriage, and of course, in that era, her life would be ruined thereafter. Pamela is fortunate – although the man pursues her, tricks her, abducts her, and molests her, eventually (after she realizes she’s in love with him, and after he finds and reads her letters) he changes his mind and marries her.

Clarissa’s story, conversely, is tragic. She only wants to be left alone, but the rich and powerful Robert Lovelace insists he wants to marry her and eventually drugs and rapes her. She still resists him (and on, and on – at 1534 pages, it’s one of the longest novels in the English language). Eventually Clarissa starves herself until she falls ill and dies.

Here’s Sean Bean as Lovelace in the BBC dramatization:

sean_bean_clarissa

I watched a bit of it years ago.  He was creepy, and I’d want to avoid him too!

What was special about these books, and what’s the link to human rights?

Continue reading

Posted in narrative science | Tagged , , , , | 1 Comment

Shocked by Mary Shelley

Until this month, I had never read Frankenstein. I always thought that I had, but, nope. Dracula is another matter – I bought my first copy from the Scholastic Book Club in sixth grade, and my life revolved around it for years. Frankenstein, though, surprised me.

Frankenstein is, of course, famous as the first book in a brand-new genre, science fiction, written by a brilliant teenage girl, Mary Godwin Shelley. The story of its origin is famous. One stormy night, at a villa in Switzerland, four friends decided on a competition to see who among them could write the best horror story. The competitors were young Mary Godwin, her lover and future husband the poet Percy Bysshe Shelley, his notorious friend Lord Byron, and Byron’s personal physician, John Polidori. I don’t know if the other two completed their entries, but Polidori did come up with a story called The Vampyre, based on some notes that Byron had collected on his journeys in the Balkans.

Although The Vampyre went on to inspire Bram Stoker’s Dracula, Frankenstein won the competition, and Shelley published her book in 1818. Then in 1831, she revised it heavily, having been told it was “too radical,” and this later version has been the most widely published since then.

And thanks to the online book club sponsored by retro game streamer Karkalla, whom my partner follows on Twitch TV, it was now my turn to finally read Frankenstein. We’re reading the 1818 edition. It’s considered more true to Shelley’s own beliefs, which were heavily influenced by the writings of her mother, Mary Wollstonecraft, the pioneering feminist who had died when her daughter was a baby.

The thing that floored me from the very earliest chapters was the realization that Frankenstein is a total take-down of Romanticism, an artistic and cultural movement that was central to the identities of her Continue reading

Posted in salience markers | Tagged , | 7 Comments

Biden’s age, Trump’s… everything?

This week, New York Times columnist Frank Bruni asked a very revealing question: Why is the American public so focused on Joe Biden’s age, when Donald Trump is almost as old and has a far less healthy lifestyle and physique? It’s a good point. For the moment, let’s set aside all of our thoughts about policies and values associated with the two men (to the extent that our imaginations can stretch that far). Which of them is more likely to be physically thriving in 2028, a trim 85-year-old man who eats well and at least up until now has been getting regular daily exercise, or an overweight 82-year-old man who has spent the last few decades sitting around eating junk?

So why do we care about Biden’s age but not Trump’s?

Bruni mentions geriatric specialist Rosanne Leipzig, who suggests that Biden’s language reads as “old.” He uses words and phrases like “malarkey” and “God love ya” and “c’mon man,” which feel dated. And that theory makes sense, for the small fraction of Americans who actually pay attention to Biden’s speech patterns. (I hadn’t realized “c’mon man” was elderly-talk. I must be getting up there too!) Meanwhile, she says that “Trump’s rebel pose reads young.” Maybe so. Also, as Bruni points out, Trump does his best to disguise his age with hair dye and cosmetics, whereas Biden looks his age.

But I think Bruni himself hits on a better theory, and I’m going to back it up with science.

Way back in the 1950s and 1960s, psychologist Daniel Berlyne dedicated his research career to the features of things that draw our attention: sharp contrasts, disorder, novelty, surprisingness, and so on. In art and music – and in things we see and hear more generally – these features can interest and excite us, Continue reading

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , | 2 Comments

Living in suspense

A few weeks ago, I was eagerly awaiting the final episode of Sanditon. It was a Masterpiece Theater series based on Jane Austen’s unfinished novel of the same name – she’d introduced the characters and the setting, but didn’t live long enough to tell the story, so it wasn’t obvious how it would end. Charlotte would surely end up with the man she wanted, but what about Miss Lambe, the young heiress Austen had described as “half mulatto”? Would she marry the duke to get the fortune seekers to leave her alone, or would the duke be free to pursue his intimate friendship with lovely Arthur Parker? And how about our more mature lovers, the rascally lawyer and the king’s ex-mistress? Or the much more mature lovers, Lady Denton and her long-lost, now rich, childhood sweetheart?

(Arthur Parker is the best!)

turlough-convery-sanditon-arthur-6435c427e6eb7That last week, it felt hard to wait for the ending – especially when the cable’s schedule said there would be a “shocking revelation” (and thankfully that was a total misrepresentation – there was nothing shocking nor a revelation, only a reasonable misunderstanding). Then I realized that with PBS Passport I could easily watch the final episode online, immediately.

I declined. I realized I liked having a whole week to wonder how things would be resolved. It’s a normal human thing to take pleasure in suspense, at least where recreation is involved. Otherwise we’d never sit down to watch or read a story at all.

And I’m accustomed to the pace of television that I grew up with, where you waited from week to week to learn what happens next, and sometimes spent the entire summer waiting for a cliffhanger to be resolved. This binging of an entire series over a few days is alien to me.

I’m not a purist – with anime shows I’m fine with watching two or three episodes back-to-back, and a few more the next night, and the next, especially if the entire show is hundreds of episodes long.

In real life, too, there are a great many ways in which it’s wonderful that we don’t have to wait and wait to find out what’s happened. I can’t imagine living in the 19th century, when if someone you loved moved away or went on a long trip or – ack – went off to war, you’d have to wait for them to write and send you a letter so you’d know they were okay. It was much better when I was a kid – if anything important happened, they could probably use the phone. Now it’s trivial to send a message instantly using that handy device we all carry in our pockets.

I wonder, though, whether this all points to a way our speeded up society has changed that we tend to overlook. If we don’t like dramatic tension when it’s only recreational – if we’d rather binge and get it all at once – then how can we bear such suspense when the stakes are much higher?

Continue reading

Posted in narrative science, US politics | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Is it “good”? Or is it “sweet”?

This year on Easter, after a lovely dinner with my partner and son, and after we each looked to see what the Easter Bunny had put in our Easter baskets, we settled down to consider playing the board game Bunny Kingdom. (If you’re guessing we celebrate what might be described as a “secular pagan” version of the holiday, you’d be correct – bunnies and eggs and candy are at the forefront.)

As I read the Bunny Kingdom rules, I found myself becoming sleepier and sleepier. My partner and son didn’t care – they were eagerly discussing the upcoming new set of cards for Magic: The Gathering. I then curled up for a nap, but kept listening to the two of them.

After a bit, I noticed that some of the new Magic cards were “good,” while others were “sweet!” I asked about this and was told the two terms are not synonyms – a card can be good but not sweet, or sweet but not good, or neither, or ideally, both. After following their conversation a bit longer, I suggested that maybe “good” means it’s a rational, calculated judgment, while “sweet!” is more emotional. They agreed.

You may not know anything about Magic: The Gathering beyond what I’ve just told you – it’s a game played with cards that come out in sets. If you’re curious, I can add that the game’s been around for 30 years. It has millions of players and generates several billion dollars in revenue each year for the company that owns it, which is currently Hasbro. About four times a year, new sets of cards are released, each set having its own theme but also including ongoing themes and characters.

MtG_cards

I’m not here to talk about Magic, though – what I’m interested in here is that good/sweet distinction. We like some things for rational reasons, and others for emotional reasons.

I’m not going to claim those are two separate things. Pretty much everything has an emotional charge, otherwise we’d pay little attention to it. Believing that something is rational, orderly, logical, elegant, efficient, thorough… that comes with a certain emotional satisfaction.

But I would also make the case that emotional responses to abstract things, things that don’t affect us directly, happen for rational reasons. There are predictable patterns for considering something to be Continue reading

Posted in salience markers, US politics | Tagged , | Leave a comment

Thinking like a rose

I wonder what roses think about wildflowers that “volunteer” to share their garden without an invitation?

That’s a comment one of my readers made in response to my last blog post. I loved that comment, because it sends us off in either of two very illuminating directions, and as I made notes for my response I realized my answer could become a blog post of its own.

In my post, when I talked about garden plants, wildflowers, and weeds, I wrote as if the human perspective was what mattered, and more specifically, the “human who’s in charge of a garden” versus a “human observing what nature does on its own.” In both cases, it was humans making the categories on behalf of plants.

Making categories is an act of power – a way of claiming and exercising power. When scientists do it, the categories are provisional. They recognize that there can be better ways to categorize things, which they’re (in theory) open to, and they (generally) understand that categories serve a purpose. You need different category systems depending on what you’re doing.

But there are also lots of categories that we learn culturally, and these often have considerable social power behind them that usually resists any openness to questioning and revision.

Who’s in charge of the categories? It makes a big difference. If you were a German Jew in the 1930s, you’d likely think of yourself as a German who happened to be Jewish, while the Nazi party wanted people to think of you as a Jew who happened to be located in Germany.

sarunasMy all-time favorite professional basketball player is Šarūnas Marčiulionis, who played for the Golden State Warriors. He’s Lithuanian who came to the U.S. from the Soviet Union, and I was continually shocked by some people’s hostility towards him as a “Russian.” Didn’t they understand that the Russians had forcibly conquered Lithuania and were thus even more of a threat to him and things he valued than they were to American interests? Well, no, they didn’t, and I kept thinking how painful it may have been for him to be called “Russian” by ignorant Americans.

I have a whole set of blog posts I haven’t yet finished writing about the importance in today’s political world of who gets to decide how to categorize things, a topic that’s highly relevant both for gender issues and abortion rights. But Steve, if your question was metaphorical (pointing out that I’m not taking the perspective of those in the thick of it), it’s going to have to wait until I finish writing those posts, because I’m also fascinated by where we go if we take your question literally.

There’s a growing body of amazing work on plant perception, awareness, and even communication. I’ve been collecting books on the topic, but the only one I’ve read in the past ten years was What a Plant Knows by Daniel Chamovitz. Probably the most up-to-date book is Planta Sapiens: The New Science of Plant Intelligence. The lead author is Paco Calvo, the head of the Minimal Intelligence Laboratory in Spain, where they focus on understanding how plants experience the world. Plants can learn and remember! Wow! Continue reading

Posted in category science | Tagged , , , , | 1 Comment

Wildflowers or weeds?

Wildflowers! Today I got a break from the massively complicated paper I’m writing, and we also had a break in the rain, so I went out to check in with the neighborhood wildflowers. A few years ago, I set myself a project of photographing them every Sunday, so I know just what will be there, but I hadn’t taken a look yet this year.

My main wildflower photography spot is a forested hillside next to Edgewood School, and over the years I’ve seen literally dozens of types of wildflowers there (of course, not all at once). Yet, when I went to photograph “wildflowers,” I found myself struggling to define the term. Obviously I’d photograph the shooting stars, the cat’s ears and hound’s tongue, the native iris, the fawn lilies, and the wild roses, but how about the ox-eye daisies? They’re lovely flowers, but I’m told they’re “naturalized,” that is, they came to Oregon with the Europeans then learned to thrive here. (Yes, I photographed them.)

daisies

What about the dandelions? They’re “native” but also “weeds.” (Eventually I photographed them too, for the sake of thoroughness.) How about the periwinkle? I drew the line there – the very healthy patch right at the edge of the forest looked too likely to have escaped from someone’s yard.

In a garden, we have clear categories. There are the things you planted, things you didn’t plant and don’t want (weeds), and things you didn’t plant that you welcome anyway. My grandma called those “volunteers.” I have a few of those in my own yard – two red-cedar trees, natives that sprouted up nicely near the back fence; pretty little cyclamen that inexplicably appear in my lawn every fall; and a walnut tree that popped up beside the driveway ten years ago and has grown large enough to provide nice summer shade.

Back when I was photographing the wildflowers every week, I was thinking of writing an essay about categories of plants as gardened or native or weeds, and relating that to politics, where people could be making a “garden” (colonists deliberately transforming what they find) or “native” (indigenous people making their own choices) or “weeds” (with entire categories of people targeted as undesirable and problematic by virtue of who and where they are, and because they’re a “problem,” the people in power sometimes think it’s okay to focus on how to get rid of them).

These supposed problem people could be natives, like when the American settlers wanted to put farms and ranches on land that was already in use. Poison oak is native to our region, and I have to say, if we could magically banish it without poisoning the environment or paving it over, I’d be in.

Or, the supposedly problem people could be immigrants. Tansy ragwort blooms with clusters of cheerful yellow daisies, but it’s toxic for horses and livestock (and us too, if it contaminates our food supply). Continue reading

Posted in category science, environmental thought | Tagged , , , | 8 Comments