Write an essay that makes an original argument by advancing a series of related and substantiated claims in response to the prompt:
How do Haraway and Darwin differently elaborate theories of biological change?
The essay must range between 1,500 and 1,800 words, divided into coherent paragraphs. A
Sample solution
Dante Alighieri played a critical role in the literature world through his poem Divine Comedy that was written in the 14th century. The poem contains Inferno, Purgatorio, and Paradiso. The Inferno is a description of the nine circles of torment that are found on the earth. It depicts the realms of the people that have gone against the spiritual values and who, instead, have chosen bestial appetite, violence, or fraud and malice. The nine circles of hell are limbo, lust, gluttony, greed and wrath. Others are heresy, violence, fraud, and treachery. The purpose of this paper is to examine the Dante’s Inferno in the perspective of its portrayal of God’s image and the justification of hell.
In this epic poem, God is portrayed as a super being guilty of multiple weaknesses including being egotistic, unjust, and hypocritical. Dante, in this poem, depicts God as being more human than divine by challenging God’s omnipotence. Additionally, the manner in which Dante describes Hell is in full contradiction to the morals of God as written in the Bible. When god arranges Hell to flatter Himself, He commits egotism, a sin that is common among human beings (Cheney, 2016). The weakness is depicted in Limbo and on the Gate of Hell where, for instance, God sends those who do not worship Him to Hell. This implies that failure to worship Him is a sin.
God is also depicted as lacking justice in His actions thus removing the godly image. The injustice is portrayed by the manner in which the sodomites and opportunists are treated. The opportunists are subjected to banner chasing in their lives after death followed by being stung by insects and maggots. They are known to having done neither good nor bad during their lifetimes and, therefore, justice could have demanded that they be granted a neutral punishment having lived a neutral life. The sodomites are also punished unfairly by God when Brunetto Lattini is condemned to hell despite being a good leader (Babor, T. F., McGovern, T., & Robaina, K. (2017). While he commited sodomy, God chooses to ignore all the other good deeds that Brunetto did.
Finally, God is also portrayed as being hypocritical in His actions, a sin that further diminishes His godliness and makes Him more human. A case in point is when God condemns the sin of egotism and goes ahead to commit it repeatedly. Proverbs 29:23 states that “arrogance will bring your downfall, but if you are humble, you will be respected.” When Slattery condemns Dante’s human state as being weak, doubtful, and limited, he is proving God’s hypocrisy because He is also human (Verdicchio, 2015). The actions of God in Hell as portrayed by Dante are inconsistent with the Biblical literature. Both Dante and God are prone to making mistakes, something common among human beings thus making God more human.
To wrap it up, Dante portrays God is more human since He commits the same sins that humans commit: egotism, hypocrisy, and injustice. Hell is justified as being a destination for victims of the mistakes committed by God. The Hell is presented as being a totally different place as compared to what is written about it in the Bible. As a result, reading through the text gives an image of God who is prone to the very mistakes common to humans thus ripping Him off His lofty status of divine and, instead, making Him a mere human. Whether or not Dante did it intentionally is subject to debate but one thing is clear in the poem: the misconstrued notion of God is revealed to future generations.
References
Babor, T. F., McGovern, T., & Robaina, K. (2017). Dante’s inferno: Seven deadly sins in scientific publishing and how to avoid them. Addiction Science: A Guide for the Perplexed, 267.
Cheney, L. D. G. (2016). Illustrations for Dante’s Inferno: A Comparative Study of Sandro Botticelli, Giovanni Stradano, and Federico Zuccaro. Cultural and Religious Studies, 4(8), 487.
Verdicchio, M. (2015). Irony and Desire in Dante’s” Inferno” 27. Italica, 285-297.
Sample Answer
Sample Answer
The Divergent Perspectives of Haraway and Darwin on Theories of Biological Change
Introduction
The theories of biological change put forth by Donna Haraway and Charles Darwin present divergent perspectives on the mechanisms and implications of evolutionary processes. While both scholars acknowledge the significance of adaptation and variation in shaping the natural world, their approaches differ in terms of the agency attributed to organisms, the role of technology in evolution, and the consideration of non-human entities. This essay aims to explore and analyze the contrasting viewpoints of Haraway and Darwin, shedding light on their unique contributions to our understanding of biological change.
Haraway’s Relational Theory
Donna Haraway’s theory of biological change challenges traditional notions of individuality and agency, emphasizing the interconnectedness of organisms within ecosystems. In her seminal work “Staying with the Trouble: Making Kin in the Chthulucene,” Haraway introduces the concept of “sympoiesis,” which refers to the collective co-evolutionary processes that shape organisms and their environments. According to Haraway, organisms do not exist as separate entities but rather emerge through intricate webs of relationships with other organisms, non-human entities, and environmental factors.
Haraway’s theory deviates from Darwin’s individualistic perspective, which places emphasis on the competition between organisms. Instead, Haraway emphasizes the interdependence and mutual influence that exists among organisms. She argues that the concept of “naturecultures” challenges the human/non-human divide, as it recognizes the entanglement of humans with other species and the environment. Haraway’s relational theory thus offers a more holistic understanding of biological change that transcends traditional notions of individual selection.
Darwin’s Theory of Natural Selection
Charles Darwin’s theory of natural selection revolutionized our understanding of biological change. In his groundbreaking work “On the Origin of Species,” Darwin proposed that evolution occurs through a process of natural selection, whereby organisms with advantageous traits are more likely to survive and reproduce. This mechanism leads to the gradual accumulation of beneficial traits in a population over successive generations.
Darwin’s theory places a strong emphasis on competition between individuals for limited resources, as well as the role of chance in shaping evolutionary outcomes. He argues that variations within a population arise through random genetic mutations, and those that enhance an organism’s fitness are more likely to be passed on to future generations. This process, known as “survival of the fittest,” drives adaptive changes over time.
Differences in Agency
One key difference between Haraway and Darwin’s theories lies in their attribution of agency to organisms. Darwin’s theory places agency solely in the hands of individual organisms, which compete for survival and reproduction. According to Darwin, variations arise through random mutations, and only those that confer a survival advantage are preserved. This individual-centric perspective portrays organisms as active agents in their own evolutionary trajectories.
In contrast, Haraway’s theory challenges the notion of individual agency by emphasizing the interconnectedness and mutual influence among organisms. Rather than viewing organisms as isolated entities, Haraway argues that they emerge through complex networks of relationships. This relational perspective diminishes the agency attributed to individual organisms, highlighting instead the collective agency embedded within ecosystems.
The Role of Technology
Another area of divergence between Haraway and Darwin is their consideration of technology in evolutionary processes. Darwin’s theory focuses primarily on natural selection and the role of environmental factors in shaping adaptations. He does not explicitly consider technological interventions or advancements in his analysis of biological change.
In contrast, Haraway’s theory acknowledges the significant impact of technology on evolutionary processes. She argues that human interventions, such as genetic engineering and ecological restoration, have profound implications for both humans and non-human entities. Haraway suggests that these technological interventions blur traditional boundaries between natural and artificial, human and non-human, thereby reshaping ecosystems and challenging established notions of biological change.
Inclusive Consideration of Non-Human Entities
While Darwin’s theory primarily focuses on variations among individual organisms within a species, Haraway’s theory expands the scope of consideration to encompass non-human entities. Haraway argues for an inclusive approach that acknowledges the agency and significance of diverse species, as well as other non-human actors such as microbes or technological artifacts.
Haraway’s perspective challenges anthropocentric views that prioritize humans over other species. She advocates for a more egalitarian understanding of biological change that recognizes the contributions and interdependencies between different entities within ecosystems. By incorporating non-human entities into her analysis, Haraway offers a more comprehensive and inclusive framework for understanding biological change.
Conclusion
In conclusion, Donna Haraway and Charles Darwin present contrasting perspectives on theories of biological change. While Darwin’s theory focuses on individual variation, competition, and natural selection as drivers of evolution, Haraway’s relational theory emphasizes interdependence, collective agency, and technological interventions. Moreover, Haraway’s inclusive consideration of non-human entities challenges anthropocentric views and expands our understanding of biological change. Both scholars have made significant contributions to our understanding of evolution, shedding light on different aspects and mechanisms that shape the natural world. By considering these divergent perspectives, we can develop a more nuanced understanding of the complex processes underlying biological change.
