Evolution and Politics

Very short summary: This essay discusses the view that the naturalistic origins of politics set limits on what it can achieve. I argue that this view can sensibly be included within a broader realist approach to politics. However, I also emphasize that our limited knowledge of how and to what extent our evolutionary history really shapes politics must be duly acknowledged. In particular, the “evoconservative” claim that morality is constrained in its inclusivity is politically problematic. Politics should not coerce people in the name of progressive fantasies, nor in the name of an elusive human nature.

There are many possible definitions of what we call “politics,” and arguably none is consensual among political scientists and other specialists. My preferred one would, however, run something like this: the art of (re)designing society by choosing and altering the rules that justify coercive interferences with people’s lives, and of acting based on those rules in the pursuit of a large range of diverse goals that are supposed to transcend individual interests. Politics is about designing the rules of society at various levels, from the top (constitutional rules) to the bottom (e.g., rules for the provision of local public goods), and acting based on them. What differentiates politics from mere engineering is that this designing endeavor appeals to a complex mix of values (or principles, goals, ends) and facts (or means). A more specifically liberal perspective on politics turns this definition into the statement of what is sometimes called the “constitutional problem”: how should society be organized so that individuals can freely live the lives of their choice while avoiding turning into chaos?

Associating “politics” and “design” can understandably raise concerns. First, it grants political designers a lot of power over the rest of us. By determining when coercion is legitimate, they acquire potentially extensive control over people’s lives. To contain the risk that this power might be abused, the design must be such that the rulers and the ruled are, if not the same persons, at least mutually checking each other. This is the ideal of self-governance. Second, even if this ideal is close to being realized, there are still many ways the designing endeavor can go wrong. After all, humans are fallible, their knowledge is limited, and they may become carried away by their ambitions—what is known as “hubris” and what we, French, sometimes call “la folie des grandeurs.” Now, ...